ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Apprenticeships

David Crausby: What steps his Department is taking to increase the number of apprenticeships.

John Denham: The Government have rescued and expanded apprenticeships. Apprenticeship starts have more than trebled from 65,000 in 1996-97 to a record 225,000 in 2007-08. We are taking further action to promote apprenticeships during the downturn. This week, we announced an extra £7 million for up to 10 new apprenticeship training agencies to help small businesses take on apprentices. We have recently announced a further £140 million to provide 35,000 extra apprenticeship places this year. In January, we launched the online apprentices vacancy matching service to make recruitment of apprentices easier.

David Crausby: The disruption of Britain's industrial base in the early years of the last Conservative Government denied many thousands of apprenticeship opportunities, particularly in engineering. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend ensure that as we come out of this economic downturn, we have an entirely different outcome, and emerge with more skilled young people, not fewer?

John Denham: As a former apprentice himself, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. There is a sharp contrast between the Government's investment in expanding apprenticeships, the industrial policy that we outlined last week to develop our real economic strength, including in advanced manufacturing industries—the industries of the future—and the do nothing approach of the Conservative party when it was in power in the late '80s and early '90s.

Meg Munn: The Government have rightly focused on the pay gap between men and women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of tackling that is to get more women into what are seen as non-traditional sectors for them such as science, engineering and technology? What can the programme of apprenticeships do to ensure that that happens?

John Denham: One of the most important things that we can do is to ensure that in promoting apprenticeships in schools, young women are introduced to apprenticeships that are not the traditional ones for them to enter. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill introduces for the first time a statutory duty on schools to promote information about apprenticeships. As part of the guidance that follows that through, we will want to ensure that non-traditional apprenticeships are promoted to young women, and young men, in school.

Tim Farron: Just two weeks ago, the university of Cumbria announced a 40 per cent. increase in recruitment to its farm apprenticeships course, and 50 per cent. of those new recruits were from non-farming backgrounds, which is incredibly positive. At the same time, I spent much of my Easter recess visiting more than 300 small businesses in my very rural constituency, and found that the overwhelming majority had not even considered taking on an apprentice and were not aware of the scheme. Will the Secretary of State agree to give additional support not just to small businesses but to those in the tourism sector in rural areas, so that they can take advantage of the apprenticeships scheme?

John Denham: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the announcement made, I think, at the end of last week, or the beginning of this week, by my noble Friend Lord Young, about funding for group training associations to promote apprenticeships? One of the key ways of getting apprentices in smaller businesses is to ensure that a central agency run by groups of employers provides the administration and support for the apprenticeship scheme. He might like to look at his local economy and consider whether it might be appropriate for him to encourage such an application, because that is part of the practical solution to the issue that he has raised.

David Kidney: Will my right hon. Friend's Department link into the fund announced in the Budget that will enable local authorities and voluntary bodies to offer employment to young unemployed people? If people get the opportunity of the six months' employment under that scheme, that could lead to a formal apprenticeship afterwards. That is a path out of unemployment and into a better future for young people.

John Denham: My Department will be involved in the jobs fund in two ways. We will receive additional funding—well over £100 million—to offer more than 80,000 additional training places to young people who have been out of work for 12 months, to ensure that they gain new skills. We will also want to work with employers who create new opportunities to ensure that young people doing those jobs can get the skills to sustain their future employment.

David Willetts: In a parliamentary answer on 20 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), assured me that funding will allow every person who has started an apprenticeship to complete it. So why are providers approaching us to warn that funding cuts for next year are so severe that they cannot be confident even of being able to maintain their current apprenticeships, let alone meet the Government's ambitious targets for more apprenticeships? Will the Secretary of State consider our proposal for a nationwide clearing house for all apprentices who are now in danger of losing their apprenticeships before they are completed?

John Denham: Two issues are involved. On the funding for apprenticeship training, it should not be the case that training providers are unable to pay for or receive funds for the completion of current apprenticeships. On the second issue of those who lose their jobs because their employers are unable to keep them in work as a result of the downturn, we already have a clearing house in construction apprenticeships, which is obviously one of the most pressured areas, and that has managed to place more than 600 apprentices; we have changed the rules so that an apprentice can continue training for up to six months at college even if they do not have an employer, so that their training is not interrupted; we have reached agreement with the Department for Work and Pensions thatthis is unusualapprentices will automatically be able to continue for up to 13 weeks seeking work solely in the line of occupation of their apprenticeship; and we are discussing with the DWP the best way of ensuring that apprentices whose technical training might be interrupted are able to do intensive work in college to complete their training. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything that I think is feasibly possible to ensure that we continue to support apprentices who might lose their jobs while they are training.

David Willetts: I heard what the Secretary of State said, but I have to tell him that there are training providers who, having seen the provisional proposals for their funding in 2009-10, are not sure that they will have the funding to continue providing the training for apprentices whom they have already recruited. We will be holding him to account for the assurance that he and the Under-Secretary have given. I warn the Secretary of State in respect of any thought he may have had that further education capital spending was under control. He has a plan for 50 per cent. of students to go to university next year, yet he has cut his plans for university student numbers so that it is absolutely impossible for that figure to be reached. Given the current funding pressures, will he consider suspending the reorganisation of all the quangos, which has been estimated to cost 140 million, and devoting that money instead to ensuring that apprentices and students are supported during this Labour recession?

John Denham: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that on 5 January his party announced that it would be cutting my Department's budget by 610 million in this financial year, and he has yet to reply to my letter of 15 January to explain where those cuts would fall, so he is not in a position to talk about this Department's spending.
	I invite the hon. Gentleman to follow up with me the points that he has made about training providers. I understand that although it is, of course, necessary to ensure that budgets are adhered to within the Learning and Skills Council on apprenticeshipshe will entirely understand thatthere should be no question of someone having the funding for an apprenticeship that they have already started withdrawn. I am perfectly happy to follow that issue up.

Jim Sheridan: What measures are in place to ensure that contracts let by his Department facilitate the creation of apprenticeship places.

Si�n Simon: The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills is committed to maximising skills training and apprenticeship opportunities through its procurement programme. In Building Colleges for the Future, we have introduced a firm requirement that contractors working on college construction projects provide a formal training plan and maximise apprenticeship opportunities. We estimate that about 500 apprentices are currently being supported on further education college capital projectsthat is equivalent to one in every 20 workers employed. We will ensure that this requirement is extended to cover all future FE college capital projects. We are also encouraging research councils and higher education institutions to seize opportunities to provide skills and apprenticeship opportunities through their contracting processes.

Jim Sheridan: I thank the Minister for that very positive response. Good employers have nothing to fear from investing in apprenticeships for the future, but can he assure the House that those requirements will also be placed on subcontractors involved in this work? More importantly, will he ensure that any company that is found to be engaging in blacklisting people will be excluded from these contracts?

Si�n Simon: Blacklisting is an abhorrent practice. We thought that it had been stamped out in this country under Labour, but if reports of its re-emergence turn out to be true, I know that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will take it very seriously and examine it urgently. I can tell my hon. Friend that apprenticeship procurement runs throughout the supply chain and that the guidance from the Office of Government Commerce given only earlier this month sets out how Departments can find their way through the significant legal and technical complexities to ensure that they can agree contracts that provide high quality training as a fundamental requirement.

David Taylor: An academically talented young constituent of mine, who is dyslexic, obtained nine A-C grades at GCSE, but failed to obtain English, and was therefore debarred from taking up a level 3 apprenticeship. Will the Minister have a discussion with me to see whether we can encourage the sector skills councils to pay special attention to the creation of apprenticeship places for those who have learning difficulties?

Si�n Simon: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the same young constituent about whom we have corresponded, in which case I recall that he is now studying his level 3 apprenticeship and progressing well. However, I know that that does not eradicate the problem and, as my hon. Friend knows, we must strike the balance between accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities and difficulties on the one hand and maintaining the rigour of the qualification on the other. I met the chair of the Royal National Institute of Blind People earlier this week to talk about these issues as they might affect the specification of apprenticeship standards for England, which sets out the overarching definition of the apprenticeship framework. I would be glad to meet my hon. Friend to talk about such issues in greater depth.

Mr. Speaker: Martin Linton. No, Ken Purchase.

Ken Purchase: Thank you very much, Mr. Speakeralmost overlooked. [Hon. Members: Never!] I welcome the wide extension of apprenticeship schemes into many trades in recent years. What can my hon. Friend tell the House about the demand for places on science, engineering and technology-based apprenticeship schemes and what more can be done to encourage young people into such trades so that we are properly prepared for whatever upturn comes at the end of this recession?

Si�n Simon: My hon. Friend is very unlikely to be overlooked, not only because of his physical size but the magnitude of his personality and authority. He has hit the nail on the head when he talks about demand for advanced and engineering apprenticeships. The provision of such courses is led by demand. Apprenticeships are jobs, and need to be required by the employer. I am glad to confirm that the number of advanced apprenticeships continues to rise and, contrary to what we often hear from the Opposition, continues to rise as a proportion of the total number of apprenticeships.

South Thames College

Martin Linton: What recent discussions he has had with the Learning and Skills Council on the funding of phase 2 of the South Thames college redevelopment.

Si�n Simon: My Department has regular discussions with the LSC on the funding for capital projects and I am aware of the position regarding South Thames college following recent discussions with my hon. Friend and the college principal.
	Budget 2009 announced that an additional 300 million of capital funding will be made available in the current spending review period to support a limited number of the most urgent projects. Selection of these projects must be based on objective criteria that the LSC is developing in consultation with the sector.

Martin Linton: The Minister has been most helpful, meeting the college principal and me, as has the Chancellor in providing the extra funds. However, the Minister will know that the cranes and contractors are on site, so can he give any better indication of when the LSC is likely to reach a decision?

Si�n Simon: I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact date, but we expect the process that the LSC is leading, to make rapid decisions on the most urgent and high priority projects, to be completed in the near future and the colleges to be given the final go-ahead early this summer.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister's last answer gives me cause for hope that the predicament of Havering sixth form college might be resolved. That college has already spent 6 million on its capital project and the enabling works have included the demolition of a sports facility and three classrooms. These enabling works will have to be reversed if the money is not forthcoming. Will the Minister commit to the future of Havering sixth form college's capital project now, so that it has some confidence that it will make the improvements as intended?

Si�n Simon: I can tell the hon. Lady that I am truly sympathetic to her predicament and that of her college. Many college principals all over the country have undertaken development and preparatory works and have borrowed and spent money on the assumption that they would be able to deliver capital projects that they now find themselves unable to deliver according to the time scales that they first thought. She knows that I will not be able to make commitments about her college now. Indeed, it is not for me to make commitments about the proposals for any college in detail. These decisions have to be made by the Learning and Skills Council through a transparent and open process, particularly in the current difficult climate. We are confident that we will get decisions on the urgent and high priority cases very quickly and on the other cases that do not make it into that category soon thereafter. Colleges that find themselves in difficulties with costs will be supported.

Further Education Colleges

Hugo Swire: How much capital expenditure on further education colleges is planned in (a) East Devon constituency and (b) England in 2009-10.

Si�n Simon: While East Devon college has received capital support in the past, there are currently no capital projects under way at either East Devon college or Bicton college. Therefore, there is currently no planned expenditure on approved capital projects in the East Devon constituency in 2009-10.
	Budget 2009 announced additional capital funds of more than 300 million for this spending review period2009-10 and 2010-11and the total further education capital budget for 2009-10 is 827.6 million. That budget will cover expenditure on projects which have already been approved as well as on new projects.

Hugo Swire: I was hoping to get the Secretary of State rather than the twitterer. The Secretary of State, who is a good east Devon boy, will have heard, if not from the excellent chairman of Uplyme parish council, about the continuing discrimination against schooling and funding for schools in east Devon.
	The Minister's reply was very telling inasmuch as he said that there were no plans for capital expenditure in east Devon, which just goes to underline what I have just said. However, he will possibly be aware of plans to secure the Rolle college campus site in Exmouth following the vacation by the university of Plymouth. We are making strident moves to achieve that. Will he instruct the Learning and Skills Councilor have a discussion with it on this subjectto prioritise that plan, should we be successful?

Si�n Simon: I am happy to speak to the Learning and Skills Council about the hon. Gentleman's project. I certainly was not saying that there would never be any capital expenditure in east Devon, but simply that, as I understand it, there are no plans for FE college capital expenditure at the moment.

Jim Cunningham: The news of the 3 million capital will be most welcome for Hereward college in Coventry. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that college is also a national college for people with learning difficulties and various disabilities. That situation contrasts with the years when the Opposition were in Government, when they never properly funded capital programmes for colleges.

Si�n Simon: As ever, my hon. Friend speaks wisely and convincingly on behalf of his constituents. He makes the unerring and fundamental point that the college capital building programme budget under the Conservatives in their last year in government was precisely nil, whereas we have invested 2.3 million in the current period and are committed to investing as we go forward.

David Curry: The Government and the LSC have said that the programme will go ahead on the basis of those schemes that deliver the biggest return on capital in terms of the enhancement of skills. Will he ensure that the criteria are drawn so that colleges with well-developed programmes that serve predominantly rural areas, which tend to be heavily dependent on a handful of relatively low-paying industries, compete on a level playing field? The move of Craven college from 11 sites to a new site is part of the regeneration programme for Craven as a whole. The upgrading of skills is desperately needed and the college has an extremely good track record in delivering that.

Si�n Simon: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The importance of skills in the rural areas is absolutely understood, as are the different requirements and conditions there. I have been made aware of that in the meetings that I have had on this matter, and partly through meeting hon. Members from rural constituencies who, like the right hon. Gentleman, have raised the issue. It is something about which I am talking to the LSC, as it and the Association of Colleges put together their open and transparent process to prioritise which colleges get the go-ahead.

Andy Reed: I fully understand the need to speed up those projects and colleges to which a financial commitment has been made, but Loughborough is well down the track in terms of planning and development. Will my hon. Friend ensure that colleges such as Loughborough are not precluded from the process? More importantlyand this ties in with the industrial strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlierwill he ensure that the smaller capital projects that would probably involve colleges such as Loughborough do not get lost in the morass of existing problems and difficulties? Loughborough has a close proximity to the university and is developing many advanced manufacturing technologies. Many good but smaller projects can have a significant impact and they should not be lost in the big picture.

Si�n Simon: My hon. Friend makes a very good point on behalf of his college in Loughborough, as one would expect. No college is precluded from the process: the LSC, in partnership with the Association of Colleges, is prioritising the most urgent and highest priority cases, but all colleges will be part of the process. The LSC is considering its decisions on this matter, and its criteria will include value for money, education and skills and the impact of investment, but I would have thought that it is also bound to take into account the potential benefit of being able to fund relatively small projects. Being small will certainly not be a bar to being considered in the future.

Michael Penning: The West Herts college is a fantastic facility that looks after students in Watford and Hemel Hempstead. The capital programme that has been going on for some time has finished in Watford, but now the LSC has said that the final part of the projectthe part for Hemel Hempsteadis to be regarded as a new project. The LSC has moved the goalposts halfway through the capital project, so will the Minister meet me and the college's principal, Elizabeth Rushton, to explain exactly how it was able to do that? Coming halfway through the programme, the change will have a devastating effect on the town centre redevelopment that the college is part of.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Gentleman puts the case for his college very well. He would not expect me to comment on the individual case, but I would be more than happy to meet him and his college principal. I have met more than 40 hon. Members and their college

Michael Penning: The 41st wouldn't hurt.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Gentleman can be the 41st. There are more than a dozen in the diary, and I should be very glad to add him to the list and to see his college principal.

Stephen Williams: The 300 million announced in the Budget is not nearly enough to fund the approvals in detail or the approvals in principle that are already with the LSC. Clearly, that means that a rationing exercise will have to take place, and that an awful lot of college schemes simply will not proceed. We need some certainty for colleges and students, and for the building contractors and architects whose jobs are at stake. When will the Minister or the LSC be able to tell the colleges that the plans that they have already worked up and spent resources on will not be able to proceed any further?

Si�n Simon: Nobody is claiming or pretending that the 300 million of new cash that we got in the Budget to spend on building new projects this year is enough to solve a problem that clearly will not go away overnight. The process will remain difficult and will continue to take some time, but we will be able to bring certainty to urgent and high-priority cases within a few weeks. Colleges that are not able to move at that speed know that we have 750 million available to spend on new college building programmes, going forward. Over the course of the next period we will be able to prioritise, so that, relatively soon, colleges can begin to have a sense of where they stand, and of roughly when they can begin to build.

Adam Afriyie: It is quite clear that our colleges were driven by the Government to spend a fortune on new building plans. Owing to economic mismanagement, the Government now say that they do not have the cash to deliver on their side of the bargain. As a result, hard-pressed colleges up and down the country have lost huge sums of their own money. I recently visited a victim of the crisis, Matthew Boulton college in Birmingham, Erdington, and it stands to lose tens of millions of pounds. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer the Minister, who is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box now and apologise to the students, his college and his constituents. The offer is an open offer. Will he take the opportunity?

Si�n Simon: I hate to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he does not know what he is talking about, but Matthew Boulton college is not in Birmingham, Erdington. Everything else that he said was wrong, too. We will be spending 827 million on college building projects this year, 300 million of which is new money. The LSC mismanaged this project, but it is being resolved and we are bringing clarity and certainty to colleges, which is much needed and in good order.

Learning and Skills Council

Stephen Hepburn: What recent representations he has received on the review of the Learning and Skills Council's capital funding programme; and if he will make a statement.

John Denham: As the House would imagine, I have received many representations about the LSC capital programme, and I have endeavoured to keep the House informed about it. I am grateful to Sir Andrew Foster for setting out clearly how, despite record investment in FE capital programmes, the LSC capital programme came to be over-committed.
	In the Budget, we announced an additional 300 million of capital funding for the current spending review. This will enable a limited number of projects to start soon. The LSC is now working with the Association of Colleges, the wider FE sector and my Department to agree the criteria for prioritising the projects that are the most urgent and of the greatest need.

Stephen Hepburn: Does the Minister agree that the decision on which colleges should be given the go-ahead should be based on need and not on who jumped the gun like in some wild west land grab? If so, does he agree that youth unemployment should be a major factor in assessing need? South Tyneside has more than 2,000 young people unemployed, so should it not be top priority?

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is vital that the prioritisation reflects real need, value for money and the impact of the investment that is proposed in a college. My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for South Tyneside college, and I commend him for it. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said, we cannot and should not prejudge the decisions that the LSC will take, but they must be taken according to criteria that are seen to be fair, transparent and right.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his letter and to the Minister for agreeing to meet me next week along with the principal of National Star college. We hope to establish that the college is one of the most deserving cases as it works entirely with young people with extreme physical disabilities and is half way through the capital transformation of its campus. If the additional funding that is being provided is taken from subsequent years' budgets, will we not be solving some of the problem this year, but creating further problems in future years?

John Denham: The Budget settlement has two elements that are important in bringing certainty and clarity, or as much certainty and clarity as we can, to the current situation. The first is that we have an additional 300 million to spend in this comprehensive spending review, so far as possible front-loaded towards the coming months rather than the latter end of the CSR. The second is the ability to plan into the next CSR at an indicative target of at least 300 million, which gives us the ability to look not just at the work that can be carried out in the next two years, but at how the programme beyond that can develop. By doing that, we hope that we can bring the greatest certainty and clarity to as many schemes as possible, not just in the next couple of years but in the years beyond that.

George Young: Where the LSC has agreed to a merger between two colleges, as has happened with Sparsholt college and the former Cricklade college in my constituency, and part of the deal was agreement to substantial capital investment on both campuses to deliver the benefits of the merger, can the Secretary of State confirm that those circumstances will have a high priority in deciding which schemes will go ahead?

John Denham: I do not think that I should go further than what I said in my answer about the need for the criteria set out by the LSC to be fair and transparent and to produce the right educational priorities. Every right hon. and hon. Member can clearly argue for the priority that would most fit their case, but my comment is that we should have, so far as possible, a set of criteria that people would think fair. As Sir Andrew Foster set out, we are in a position where expectations were raised in a much larger number of colleges than could be met, albeit with the record expenditure of 2.3 billion that we have.  [ Interruption. ] That is set out in Sir Andrew Foster's report.
	This is clearly a failure of the implementation of a good policy, and it is clearly something for which the former chief executive of LSC took responsibility. The report also sets out clearly Ministers' roleor, indeed, lack of roleand the lack of information to Ministers as that situation developed. I now have to try to manage the situation in a way that is as fair as possible to the largest number of colleges. That is the commitment that I can make, but I remind the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who intervened from a sedentary position, that his colleague, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), went to the Association of Colleges conference last year and said that no one could rely on a Conservative Government even to maintain the then planned expenditure for 2010-11. So there is a huge question mark over the Conservative party's commitment to FE capital, as there was in the past.

David Evennett: The Foster report on the Government's mismanagement of the Building Colleges for the Future programme states that the crisis is both predictable and probably avoidable. Colleges across the country are suffering at present, and many plans have had to be suspended. Concerns about the project were raised as long ago as February 2008. The Secretary of State's Department was represented at subsequent meetings where those concerns were repeated. As his officials knew of an impending crisis, why did he not do something about it sooner? Is he not ashamed of the shambles surrounding the programme?

John Denham: The Foster report sets out very clearly where responsibility lies, and as the hon. Gentleman says, it sets out missed opportunities in the LSC to bring the issue to a head and to resolve it. We have accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the Foster report. It is a matter of fact and of record, which was accepted by Sir Andrew, that Ministers were not informed of the scale, nature and, indeed, existence of the problem until the last two months of last year, by which time all the decisions that had contributed to the current problem had been already taken. One of Sir Andrew's recommendations was that my Department should look at the relationship and accountabilities between my civil servants and the non-departmental public bodies for which we are responsible. In part of my response to Sir Andrew Foster's report, I asked the permanent secretary of my Department to review all our relationships with our non-departmental public bodies, so that there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about the responsibilities and accountability of officials who have relationships with those bodies. I think that that was the right response for me to make to Sir Andrew's report.

Adult and Community Learning

Lee Scott: What arrangements his Department has made for adult and community learning provision in 2009-10; and if he will make a statement.

David Lammy: We will invest 210 million in adult community learning in England in 2009-10. We also recently published The Learning Revolution White Paper, setting out our ambitious vision for informal learning in the 21st century, with an additional 30 million funding for such learning this year.

Lee Scott: I thank the Minister for his reply, but is this not just a cover for the 1.5 million-worth of cuts that the Government brought in for these services in 2005?

David Lammy: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman repeat that, because he will know that what his constituents need, particularly at this time, is investment in skills, particularly through Train to Gain, in the workplace. That is precisely what we have done and what we are continuing to do. He should separate that from the learning revolution strategy and, quite rightly, the new investment that we are now making in learning for learning's sake and in all the fantastic activity that is going on in constituencies such as his in supporting book clubs and work funded by other Departments. That is what we are doing, and it is the right thing to do.

Rob Marris: Adult education in Wolverhampton is run by the city council, which is controlled by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats in a rotten coalition. I urge my right hon. Friend to take no lessons from the Conservative partythe hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) referred to cuts of 1.5 millionbecause in Wolverhampton alone, the Tory coalition has cut 640,000 from adult education. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that as disgraceful?

David Lammy: It is a disgrace; my hon. Friend is right. It is also a disgrace that the official Opposition indicate that they will make cuts of 610 million, but give no sign of where the axe would fall.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister pay attention and look at the college of West Anglia, which has a fantastic reputation for adult and community learning provision? Is he aware that it was granted in principle funding for two new sites, with capital expenditure of 150 million, but that that has been put on hold? The college has spent all its reserves and made major commitments. Is he aware that the project was to have been part of a major regeneration programme in south King's Lynn and an aspect of a key skills agenda in an area where unemployment is going up?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman puts his case, as have many hon. Members. I refer him to what has been said.

Further Education

John Baron: How many publicly funded further education courses there were in (a) Billericay constituency and (b) England in (i) 2005 and (ii) 2008.

David Lammy: In 2005-06, 3.85 million adult learners resident in England participated in LSC-funded skills courses. In 2007-08, that total was 3.28 million. The corresponding figures for the Billericay constituency were 5,960 in 2005-06, and 5,060 in 2007-08.

John Baron: Given that answer, may I raise the issue of bureaucracy? According to the Association of Colleges, the funding system for FE colleges is too slow and too many rules restrict the flow of money between funding pots. Given the fall in FE enrolments that the Minister outlined, not would it be wise for the Government to cut bureaucracy and red tape instead of increasing it by creating new quangos?

David Lammy: I ask the hon. Gentleman to follow closely the passage of the Bill before Parliament that brings into being, with precisely that aim, the Skills Funding Agency. One of the first things that I was able to do as skills Minister was to ensure that we made more moves to deal with any bureaucracy attached to Train to Gain. We are making progress and we will continue to do so.

John Hayes: We heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), that potential apprentices are being turned away and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) that the capital funding crisis could have been avoided. While the ship is on the rocks, the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) said, intend to reorganise the crew. The changes to the Learning and Skills Council will cost 42 million in vacating properties and a further 190 million in transferring pensions. In confirming those figures, will the Minister recognise that it is time that his lot jumped overboard and gave way to a new team who can steer us to calmer waters?

David Lammy: I always look forward to facing the hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box. As always, we do not recognise his figures. We have just had a lengthy Budget debate in which we set out the efficiency savings that we intend to make, and I am surprised that he was not paying attention.

Building Colleges for the Future Programme

Desmond Swayne: What recent progress has been made in implementing the Government's Building Colleges for the Future programme; and if he will make a statement.

Si�n Simon: In 2008-09, the Learning and Skills Council FE capital budget of 547 million helped to support the development of 253 projects. The LSC has supported more than 700 projects at nearly 330 colleges, with only 42 colleges not benefiting from any capital support. More than half the college estate has been modernised, and we remain committed to the FE capital investment programme. The 2009 Budget announced that an additional 300 million of capital funding will be made available in the current spending review period. Also, for planning purposes, we are working on the basis of a provisional programme budget of 300 million a year in the next spending review, with the final level of investment to be confirmed during that review.

Desmond Swayne: The 300 million is about one twentieth of the amount required to meet the expectations of those colleges that have [Interruption.] I tell the Secretary of State that I would not, but the key question for him is: who was asleep at the wheel when this debacle unfolded? How much of that 300 million will filter down to Brockenhurst college?

Si�n Simon: As I said to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), nobody is pretending that with the new money that we have got in the Budget, we will solve the problem in its entirety. We will give some collegesthe most urgent and high-priority casesimmediate go-ahead to start building this summer, and in the near future we will give the rest of the colleges in the pipeline a great deal more clarity and certainty about who can start building what, when.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Minister spoke of meetings that he has had with representatives from a number of colleges to discuss the impact of the funding crisis on them. Cornwall college and I are very disappointed that our meeting, scheduled for Monday, has been pushed back to June. Given that the project in question will have an important impact on the wider regeneration of the area, and given that we are expecting a decision by the time of the spending review in the summer, will the Minister do all that he can to bring that meeting forward, so that the college can make representations before any decision is taken?

Si�n Simon: I sympathise with the hon. Lady. I have had more than 40 meetings with hon. Members and dozens of principals, and there are dozens more such meetings in the diary, because the issue is so important, and because I recognise how difficult the situation is for college principals and how that can put hon. Members in a difficult position. I genuinely want to help people talk through the issues, and give what reassurance we can. Inevitably when trying to hold that number of meetings in a relatively short time, as the queue stacks up, people get jumped about.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace), in response to his comments earlier in the week, that his meeting was not cancelledit was rescheduled. He was given another date a week in advance. While he was making statements that were factually quite wrong, I was meeting a delegation from the Iraqi Prime Minister's education advisers. As the hon. Lady asks so nicely, I will certainly do my best to see whether we can reprioritise her meeting, because she is looking after her constituents, rather than playing cheap party politics with people's colleges.

Topical Questions

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Denham: Even in difficult times, a degree is one of the best routes to achieving a good job and a rewarding career, but recognising the current global economic climate, the Government are taking action to help ensure that graduates are able to sustain and improve their employability. Yesterday I announced the creation of the graduate talent pool, a new service matching employers with graduates, which is to be launched in the summer. Businesses such as Microsoft, Marks  Spencer and Network Rail have already signed up. We believe that the pool will support about 5,000 internships, building on the 2,000 already achieved through the Higher Education Funding Council's economic challenge innovation fund. Graduates who have already been claiming jobseeker's allowance for six months or more will be able to do an internship for up to 13 weeks while claiming benefit and looking for work. We anticipate that universities are likely to offer about 14,000 additional postgraduate places, supported by 30,000 professional and career development loans in the coming year.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the considerable success, by any measure, of the higher education sector in recent times has been in no small part due to its academic autonomy, and that any state interference in that area could seriously damage the very high standards of our higher education, which is the envy of the world?

John Denham: I am happy to repeat a statement that I have made before at this Dispatch Box: one of the reasons why our universities are so good is that I do not run them, and I do not aspire to run them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the autonomy of university leadership is important. What the Government need to do is set the framework within which universities operate. Most important, from our point of view, has been the massive increase in real funding of the higher education sector, both for teaching and research, over the past 10 years. I am afraid that that is in sharp contrast to the period when his party was last in power, when funding per student fell by 30 per cent. in a very short period.  [Interruption.]

Russell Brown: In view of the raised voices, I am not sure that I want to take part in questions. None the less, the Government have made major progress in delivering apprenticeships and building them up to their rightful place as a mainstream option for young people. Of course, that work needs to be backed up by the right for suitably qualified young people to access apprenticeships. Regrettably, we in Scotland experienced funding difficulties, but will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating those MSPs who secured extra funding for almost 8,000 places, giving Scottish youngsters the same right to a place, after the funding had initially been cut back by the Scottish National party Administration?

John Denham: I very much agree. We have had quite a lot of occasion over the past year or so to draw a sharp contrast between the Government at Westminster, and our determination to invest in apprenticeships, to build up opportunities and, indeed, to legislate for a right to an apprenticeship for a suitably qualified young person, and the situation in Scotland. I congratulate John Park MSP, in particular, and his Labour colleagues in Scotland on forcing the nationalists to concede that extra money had to be invested in apprenticeships for the sake of giving Scottish young people the same opportunities as English young people. I congratulate everybody who was involved in that campaign.

Paul Burstow: Given the need to invest in upskilling and reskilling so that we are ready for the economic upturn, will the Secretary of State end the funding uncertainties at my local college, Carshalton college of further education, and other FE colleges throughout the country? Recently, the Learning and Skills Council exhorted colleges to invest in programmes to deliver more workplace-based training, but having initially said that there would be demand-led funding, the LSC now says that funding is to be capped and cut back. In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State consider more flexibility for college principals in how they use the budgets and resources that are available to them? Will he stop the LSC increasing course fees? Will he find time in his busy diary to meet me and Carshalton college principal, David Watkins, to discuss those matters?

John Denham: There were a number of questions within that question, but perhaps I can deal with the central one. We have been developing, and are proud to have developed, a demand-led training system, but the hon. Gentleman will entirely understand that no Government budget is entirely unlimited. It is quite reasonable for the LSC to take action to ensure that, on the growth of adult apprenticeships in particular, the budgets that we have set, and the budgets that are available, are the budgets that are spent. The LSC was right to take action as early as possible to indicate to training providers the budget that will be available over the coming 12 months.
	In so far as meeting the hon. Gentleman and the college is concerned, I am always happy to do so, wherever possible. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has quite a lot of college meetings in the diary, perhaps I will be able to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Rob Marris: The National Union of Students' report, Meet the Parents: The Experience of Students with Children in Further and Higher Education, is being launched in the Terrace Pavilion at lunchtime. The report shows that students with children need more flexibility and support from institutions and support providers to access education and improve their prospects, but that no one knows how many higher education students have children. Will the Minister assure me that such statistics will be collected and collated nationally so that we have those figures?

David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that important work by the National Union of Students, and I look forward to attending the reception in a few hours' time. Although I know that there are complications with the questions that we ask of students at the application stage, the matter is important. We want a system that is flexible and supports part-time studies, in particular, and the Department is looking closely at those issues in relation to the higher education framework that we will publish in the summer.

Andrew MacKay: As this deep recession is particularly difficult for young people wondering about their future, I am sure that the Secretary of State must be concerned that the number of young people who will not get a place at university this year is higher than normal, particularly as this was supposed to be the year when 50 per cent. of all young people would go on to higher education. Does he have a proper answer to that?

John Denham: More people will start undergraduate full-time education this September than ever before. The number of new university places that are available has increased by 40,000 in just two years. That reflects this Government's commitment to expanding higher education. We want to make the largest possible number of opportunities available to young people, whatever their aspirations. We have expanded higher education, we are funding more places this September, we are investing hugely in ensuring that young people who are long-term unemployed are guaranteed training or a job, and we are investing extra money in apprenticeships. I do not wish to be partisan about this

Hon. Members: Go on!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have other Back Benchers to call.

Liz Blackman: Niche engineering and light manufacturing play a significant part in the local economy of Erewash, and will offer future employment for young people with the appropriate skills. In the past four years, the number of apprenticeships completed has risen from 190 to 310, and that trend will continue with the investment that has been announced. However, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made a reasonable point about the importance of highlighting how employers and employers' representatives can access the funding and support for these apprenticeships following that announcement.

John Denham: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The reason the Department has been running, with the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the advertising campaign fronted by Sir Alan Sugar is to raise awareness of the opportunities of apprenticeships with small employers up and down the country. The regional forums that we have had with Sir Alan have been very effective at raising awareness and interest. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recent announcement of the possibility of new funding for group trading associations, which, as we have found around the country, are often the best way of reaching the small employer who might assume that it is too difficult or time-consuming to have an apprenticeship. A group trading association can reassure people and make apprentices available to a wider range of employers.

Simon Burns: Is the Minister aware that Chelmsford college wishes to rebuild on a new site to get away from the problem of antiquated and not-fit-for-purpose buildings, but as a result of constant changes and uncertainty it has recently incurred expenses in excess of 500,000 to cope with that? Does he agree with its principal, David Law, that it would be sensible to have a 10-year rolling programme for colleges so that they know where they stand and have the certainty of knowing when their time in the procedures will come, thereby taking away all the uncertainty, problems and excess expenditure?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will have heard me say that we now have, at least to a modest level, an ability to plan into the next spending review in a way that has not previously been possible. That does not give us a 10-year programme, but it does at least give us a five-year programme, which we have never had previously. That will help to bring as much certainty and clarity as possible to as many colleges as possible.

Clive Efford: The Government have brought forward substantial sums of money in order to stimulate growth in the economy. If my right hon. Friend has not already done so, can I urge him to contact the construction industry and other Departments that are involved in such projects to ensure that we maximise the opportunities for training for young people and others who want to learn new skills so that they can benefit in future from that stimulation of the economy?

John Denham: In our discussions with the construction industry training board, it has urged us to do what we have now done, which is to produce Office of Government Commerce guidance about how public sector construction contracts can include a requirement to train young people as apprentices in construction. It is already the case that in the substantial capital programme in my Department, we are expecting apprentices to be provided as part of contracts. The Building Schools for the Future programme has now introduced a similar requirement. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should maximise the impact of public procurement by ensuring that construction contracts include the requirement to provide apprenticeships whenever possible.

Simon Hughes: A London School of Economics report out this year shows that for older men, the chance of finding work after being laid off declines by a quarter for each year that they are out of the labour market. Can Ministers tell us what plans they have for targeted support for older men and women workers to deal with unemployment among that category in the recession?

John Denham: That is a very important point. In addition to the investment that we announced in the Budget, which is focused on guaranteeing young people work or training, my Department has already secured funding for more than 100,000 additional training courses for those just losing their jobs or who have been out of work for six months, to ensure that people can gain new skills. In the last recession, the people about whom the hon. Gentleman talks were written off. Nothing was done about them, and they were shovelled on to incapacity benefit and forgotten about. We are determined to ensure that that does not happen this time.

Philip Davies: May I ask the Secretary of State, with regards to the further education capital programme, to look at Shipley college, which has been finalising its in principle application? The uniqueness and urgency of that case relates to the fact that the college leases the buildings in which it operates, and the leases are due for renewal. It therefore needs to know where it stands with regard to the capital programme. I know that the Under-Secretary has been very generous in this regard. Will he consider meeting me and the college principal of Shipley college, so that he understands the urgency of the situation there?

John Denham: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made clear, he has already made substantial provision in his diary to meet colleges, so I am sure that he can add another one to the list. It is important to do so. We are working as hard as we can, with the additional investment that we have from the Budget, to bring as much certainty and clarity to colleges as we possibly can. That is what the LSC has been charged with doing, and it will be the LSC rather than Ministers that ultimately decides the priority programme.
	I make the point that 10 years ago there was no FE capital budget. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) told the Association of Colleges that it could not rely on the Conservatives even to commit to the current level of spending on capital. Although the current situation is very difficult, let us not forget that more than 330 colleges have already benefited from capital investment under this Government, and the programme already included 253 active projects. Just yesterday I was able to go to Northampton college with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and cut the first sod on the 80 million project that is taking place there. A great deal of very valuable investment is taking place in the FE estate thanks to this Government.

Jeff Ennis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Yorkshire and the Humber, we are currently trying to establish the world's biggest carbon capture and storage project, which will hopefully be up and running in Yorkshire by 2013-14? On that note, may I tell him that all the Yorkshire universities are currently working together to provide as much research and assistance as possible to that well-designed project? Will he join me in congratulating all the Yorkshire universities on working together on this magnificent project?

John Denham: I am not only happy to do so, but I add that I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the renewed commitment to carbon capture and storage announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change just after the Budget. From my point of view, we will be very keen to work with his Department to ensure that, with the universities, we develop the research, technology and skills that are necessary to make Britain a world leader in that technology.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: May I invite the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming parliamentary business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 4 MayThe House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 5 MayRemaining stages of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
	Wednesday 6 MaySecond Reading of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 7 MayA general debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee annual report 2007-08.
	Friday 8 MayPrivate Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 11 May will include:
	Monday 11 MaySecond Reading of the Equality Bill.
	Tuesday 12 MayConsideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 13 MayConclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 14 MayTopical debate: subject to be announced, followed by general debate: subject to be announced.
	Friday 15 MayPrivate Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 7 and 14 May will be:
	Thursday 7 MayA debate on meeting the Government's commitments to children affected by HIV/Aids in developing countries.
	Thursday 14 MayA debate on the report from the Health Committee entitled NHS Next Stage Review.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House on running the marathon on Sunday and, more to the point, completing it. He has asked for my cheque, but I think that the whole House will approve of his raising money for the Army Benevolent Fund.
	In my first exchange in January with the right hon. and learned Lady in my role as shadow Leader of the House, I raised the Government's apparent reluctance to debate the UK's preparedness for a flu pandemic. As I said at the time, Conservative Members had been calling for such a debate for well over two years. Although we appreciate the Health Secretary's willingness to update the Househe has done that twice this weekmay we none the less have a full debate, perhaps on 14 May, as Members of Parliament should have an opportunity to discuss the matter more widely than the strict limitations of a statement permit?
	Two reports have today been published on the problems in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. None the less, may we have a ministerial statement on those reports, because, in our view, they do not reduce in any way the need for an independent public inquiry?
	I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her willingness to listen to the House last week when we asked about the investigation into privilege in the wake of the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). What is the status of the two potential committees of inquiry that have been suggested, and when might she be able to give a statement to the House on the proposed way forward?
	Yesterday, the House soundly defeated the Government's policy on the Gurkhas. However, there is another group of people whom the Government treat with deep contempt: the policyholders of Equitable Life. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm what I have heardthat, a full three months after the Chief Secretary to the Treasury established an independent review into supposed ex gratia payments for those who have lost out from Equitable Life's collapse, the man leading the investigation, Sir John Chadwick, has not yet been in contact with Equitable Life or any representatives of those affected? Does not that further underline the speciousness of the review and the Government's intention to bury the issue? When will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers come to the House to give us a statement about their plans to compensateI use that word deliberately; I mean compensatepolicyholders, as the ombudsman demanded?
	Will the right hon. and learned Lady also give us a statement on the status of the Government's misguided policy on ID cards? On Tuesday, it was reported that ainevitably unnamedgroup of senior Cabinet Ministers were lobbying the Prime Minister to drop the scheme altogether. Later, the former Home Secretary who gave birth to the idea said that he favoured using biometric passports instead. After telling us for the past yearand even before thatthat ID cards are essential for national security, the Government are clearly somewhat split on the issue. After this week's U-turns on Titan prisons and national databases, perhaps the Prime Minister will return to YouTube and give us a U-turn on ID cards, too.
	May we also have a debate on our relations with Poland, in which we could take the opportunity to congratulate the Polish Prime Minister on his forthright honesty and sage advice to our Prime Minister on the rigours of fiscal probity and economic management?
	May I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady on the publication of her leadership manifesto in the guise of the Equality Bill? I know that she is very proud of it, but can she perhaps explain to the House why she will not be entrusted with steering it through on Second Reading? Will she confirm that, in tune with the stardom that she seeks, when the Bill was launched at a press conference earlier this week, she was asked to sign copies of it, as though it were a celebrity photograph? In the spirit of our regular exchanges across the Floor of the House, rather than going on to eBay, may I please have one too?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman talked about swine flu, and I acknowledge that he has been asking for a debate about preparedness for flu since December last year. His suggestion that we select flu preparedness as the subject of either the topical debate or the general debate on 14 May is sensible. As he acknowledged, the Secretary of State for Health will come to the House as often as necessary, in order to be accountable to the House for the plans that have been made. However, as I am sure hon. Members will be aware, that is an issue not just for the Department of Health, but for the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and a range of other Departments. Local government is also involved and Cobra is meeting daily, joining work from across Departments and the agencies.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about a ministerial statement on Stafford hospital. The Secretary of State for Health will make a statement. He wants to make an oral statement, because he knows that the House will want to hear from him personally and ask him questions. We have had to prioritise the swine flu statements, as we do not want to make too many statements on any one day. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State for Health will recognise that the Secretary of State wants to come to the House as early as possible to make that statement, so that he and other hon. Members can ask questions.
	On the questions of privilege and the Speaker's Committee and the request for a reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee, I need to be clear about the exact position of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats and about their preparedness to nominate their Members to sit on the Speaker's Committee, which the House resolved to establish earlier this year. I shall have to check the state of play and perhaps discuss the terms of reference for a reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said about the inquiry into Equitable Life not yet having made any investigations is correct. However, I cannot give him a categorical answer on that, so I will discuss it with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and work out how best to communicate with him and all other hon. Members, whom I know are concerned about Equitable Life, in case what he has told the House is wrong and they need reassurance about that.
	As for the policy on ID cards, it is important for foreign nationals to be able to have biometric ID cards. Removing any uncertainty about identity can allow visa sections all around the world to operate much more quickly. When the House was in recess, I spent two days visiting Ghana, where many of my constituents come from, and was taken through the process of taking biometric data. The people there say that they can now issue visas within two days to people who want to visit Britain, because they do not have to worry about what their identity is or make massively expensive checksthe biometric data are captured. That relates to biometric cards for foreign nationals. Hon. Members should also recognise that airport security is very important indeed; biometric identity cards are important for that, too. They are important and we should be pressing on with them.
	I was pleased to hear that some Opposition Members welcome the Equality Bill. Although not all of them have been convinced, we will not give up hope and we hope to persuade them finally to enter the 21st century. The Bill was a manifesto commitment for the Government in 2001. I will introduce the Bill's Second Reading debate on Monday 11 May, but the lead Minister will be the truly excellent and flawless Solicitor-General. I look forward to her dealing with all those who seek to take a different view of the Bill.

David Heath: I am disappointed that there will be no Liberal Democrat Supply days in the next two weeks, as they seem to be going rather well at the moment. Following the historic win after yesterday's debate, I should like genuinely to thank the Minister for Borders and Immigration for responding to my request and coming back to the House to make a statement yesterday evening. That was the right thing to do. May I ask the Leader of the House a specific question relating to that? The Minister made it clear that he would publishhis wordrevised proposals for Gurkha settlement before the recess, but I do not think that publishing will be sufficient. The proposals need to be presented to the House, and Members must have an opportunity to express an opinion on the Government's solution. I hope that we will have either a statement or a debate on that issue.
	Today, the Metropolitan Police Authority is discussing the demonstrations associated with G20 and the police response to them. It is extraordinary that the House has had no opportunity to discuss those matters yet, either by means of a statement from the Home Secretary or of a debate. May we have an opportunity for such a discussion?
	One of the changes in the machinery of government that the Prime Minister introduced when he became Prime Minister was to split the Education Department into two. The two Departments are now competing to see which can be the more incompetent. We have had the issues relating to college buildings, to sixth-form numbers and to SATs, and we have had the unseemly dispute with the former chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. May we have a debate on how we are running education in this country, and on why those two Departments have become so shambolic?
	Pigs have been uppermost in our thoughts over the past couple of weeks, mainly because of pig flu. I welcome the Secretary of State for Health's statement and his undertaking to keep the House updated, and the Leader of the House's offer of a debate. That is exactly the right thing to do. However, there seems to be another contagion around the place, and I would call it pig's ear syndrome. The Prime Minister seems to turn everything he touches into a pig's ear at the moment. Whether it is the economy, the issue of the Gurkhas, Members' allowances or even appearing on YouTube, he has not dealt with any of these issues with great competence. Perhaps what we need is a therapeutic debatea cathartic debateon the conduct and performance of the Prime Minister, so that Labour Members can have the opportunity to say in the Chamber what they are saying in the corridors and the Tea Room, and it is not desperately complimentary about the Prime Minister.

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about our response to the result of the Opposition day debate. The Minister made it clear in his statement that we respect and accept the will of the House, and that further action will be taken, as announced yesterday. The House will be kept informed.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of official inquiries are under way into the policing of the G20 demonstrations. Hon. Members will no doubt tell me if I am wrong, but I think that the Home Affairs Select Committee has begun an inquiry.
	Ministers from the Department for Children, Schools and Families answered questions on Monday, and we had Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills questions earlier today. Therefore, any questions about increasing the number of students staying on at school and taking A-levels, about the increasing number going into further and higher education, or about the guarantee of committing to education up to the age of 18 could have been put to Ministers this week. Furthermore, the Prime Minister answers questions every Wednesday.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a statement on Sri Lanka, which the House will be anxious to hear, and the main business of the day appears to have attracted a certain amount of interest. I must keep a tight control over business questions today, so I appeal to hon. Members to co-operate by being extremely brief. I do not think it will be possible to call every Member who is seeking to catch my eye. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) will get us off to a good start.

Barry Gardiner: Many hon. Members have experienced problems with unjustifiable service charges. I have a constituent who has experienced a service charge of 285 per week on a studio flat. Do not the Government need seriously to address the issue of service charges on such properties?

Harriet Harman: I agree that there can be big problems with service charges, particularly for those in former council flats that have been bought. I suggest that my hon. Friend raise the matter with the relevant Minister, who is in the Lords.

Nicholas Soames: Following the Prime Minister's statement yesterday on future strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will the Leader of the House try to secure a debate on some of the details that were not made plain, particularly the serious problems of the chain of command and its structure, which are causing real problems in Afghanistan? Without a resolution to that problem, there will be no success.

Harriet Harman: We have had a debate on Afghanistan and Pakistan since Christmas, but perhaps we should split our debates on 14 May between swine flu and Afghanistan and Pakistan. I do not want to give a running commentary on my thoughts, but that might be a sensible suggestion.

Mary Creagh: Three weeks ago, the High Court decided that four Rwandans accused of involvement in genocide could not be extradited to Rwanda to face justice. There is a gap in UK law between the War Crimes Act 1991 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001, so may we have an urgent debate, either in Government time or in Westminster Hall, to discuss plans to close the gap in the law and ensure that those who are accused of mass murder do not reside with impunity in our country?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Justice Secretary and Home Secretary to discuss my hon. Friend's point, and write to her to let her know their views.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Leader of the House accept that a Member who is not called to speak on the Second Reading of a Bill or put on the Public Bill Committee can contribute to such an important debate only in the remaining stages or on Report? Will she assure the House that programming will be abolished for the Report stage of Bills?

Harriet Harman: No, I will not. Without programming, all the debate can be on the first part of the Bill, and subsequent issues do not get debated. Programming helps to ensure that all the different elements of a Bill are scrutinised on Report. That is why programme motions were so liberally used by the Conservative party when it was in government.

David Clelland: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, as we have discussed the matter previously, of the important role of carers in our society. She is also aware of the great stress put on carers by looking after someone who is infirm, elderly or disabledit is often so stressful that the carer's own health suffers. Such caring is as stressful as looking after a child, yet child allowance is paid to parents regardless of their income as a matter of right. Carer's allowance is paid only to certain categories of carers, can be cut off if earnings rise a few pence above 95, and is not paid to retired carers. May we have an early debate on carer's allowance to come up with a fairer system for carers?

Harriet Harman: I will look for an opportunity to debate carers, which is an issue of growing concern. My hon. Friend might be able to choose the issue for a Westminster Hall debate. He will be interested to know that the Equality Bill includes provision to prevent people from being discriminated against because they are carers: for example, someone who applies for a promotion at work and is told, Sorry, we know you are caring for your elderly mother, so you can't have promotion because we don't think you are committed to work. We must do everything possible to support carers and to enable them to work as well as care, if that is what they want to do. The number of over-85s in this country is set to double over the next two decades, so family care is a central issue.

Christopher Fraser: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on nitrate-vulnerable zones. Is she aware that the Environment Agency believes that 6 per cent. of all farmland has been wrongly designated, but that farmers are still expected to invest tens of thousands of pounds on additional slurry storage that may prove unnecessary?

Harriet Harman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has sought the opportunity to ask about that point in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. I suggest that he consider that, or seek a Westminster Hall debate.

Mike Wood: It is four years since the high hedges legislation was put on the statute book. May we have a ministerial statement on departmental monitoring of the legislation, and what advice is being given to local authorities to make it more effective?

Harriet Harman: I will bring that matter to Ministers' attention, and they will consider the best way to be accountable to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on the issue.

Douglas Hogg: Last night, the immigration Minister was not able to say in detail how the Government intend to respond to the declared will of the House on the Gurkhas. Will the right hon. and learned Lady therefore arrange for the Prime Minister, who was clearly the principal architect of the Government's ungenerous proposals, to make a statement in the next two weeks? Will she also be good enough to sit next to him, so that she can prevent him sneaking out before he is called?

Harriet Harman: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a Member of the House when the Conservatives were in government, that neither he nor they proposed any rights of settlement for Gurkhas. When we came into government, we arranged for all those from 1997 to have rights of settlement. We will respect the points raised in the debate on the Liberal Democrat motion and take them forward.

Phyllis Starkey: I have raised previously the use of hazardous chemicals in nail bars in this country. However, research has identified a new hazardthe use of ultraviolet lampsassociated with skin cancer. Will the Leader of the House suggest how the Secretary of State for Health might revisit the non-interventionist approach to the beauty industry and its potential health hazards, and be more active in protecting women's health?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Whether it is mostly womenand some menwho get melanoma skin cancer from sun beds, hazardous chemicals having a terrible effect on women's fingernails, breast enlargement surgery or facelifts [Interruption.] I will get back to her on those matters. Ministers for Women will work with Health Ministers on a set of proposals.

Alan Reid: This week's  Helensburgh Advertiser starts off by saying that
	shocked staff at Faslane naval base have hit out, claiming they were kept in the dark over radioactive leaks.
	The Ministry of Defence must be completely open when such incidents happen. Attempts at excessive secrecy cause great concern locally and play into the hands of those who would like to see the base closed for ideological reasons. May we have an urgent statement from the Ministry of Defence about the recent radioactive leaks?

Harriet Harman: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Ministers concerned.

David Kidney: The Health Secretary has published two important reports today about Stafford hospital. Given that one says that there are further urgent actions to be taken at the hospital, and the other has wider implications for the NHS about public and patient involvement and the responsibilities of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, may I stress the urgency of the need for an oral statement, and will the Leader of the House say whether we will get it on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday next week?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has pressed on the issues of concern for patient care and safety and good treatment for his constituents. There will be an oral statement, although I cannot give the specific day at this point. When the Secretary of State is nearer to being clear on the matter, I will ask him to write to constituency Members at least to ensure that they know that the statement is happening.

Bill Wiggin: On 25 March, the right hon. and learned Lady was incredibly kind in arranging a meeting between my constituents and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Today, I have received a letter in which he says that his officials have met my constituents, and in view of that he does not feel that a meeting is necessary. Will she explain why the noble Lord Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire is so unwilling to meet people from that constituency in the county of Herefordshire?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could put that point to the Ministers concerned during Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform questions next Thursday.

Jim Sheridan: Can the Leader of the House assist those Members who wish to come to work by public transport? The pavements and roads around Parliament square have been dug up, fenced off and left abandoned, resulting in significant traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians. Will she therefore make representations to the appropriate authorities to find out how long this will last?
	Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Harriet Harman: I shall make sure that the diverse authorities responsible for all these issues are aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed, which have been supported by other hon. Members.

Andrew MacKay: Why is there nothing about grace and favour homes for Ministers in the motions that the Government have laid before us for debate later today, given that that matter was includedvery welcome it was tooin the Prime Minister's original proposals?

Harriet Harman: If the right hon. Gentleman waits until the next business, he will discover that I am going to address that in my speech.

David Taylor: Can we have a debate about early-day motion 1297, which I have co-sponsored?
	 [That this House, observing that the intention of the founding Act of t he Bank of England in 1694 was 'that their Majesties' subjects may not be op pressed by the said corporation' , notes that those subjects have been  seriously oppressed by the Bank' s failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system over which it presides; and therefore suggests that this oppression should be dealt with as the Act provides by fines three times the value of the abusive trading.]
	The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) is not in his place, but he will see that the early-day motion deals with a failure to control the greed, risk-taking and speculation of the banking system. When community banking is turned into casino banking, when training is in sales and not in banking, and when over-centralised decision taking has relegated local staff to box-ticking with no room at all for initiative, we need to review the ethics of our banking system.

Harriet Harman: I will ensure that the early-day motion is drawn to the attention of Treasury Ministers, the Financial Services Authority and Ministers in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Edward Timpson: Can we have a debate on the National Offender Management Service and, in particular, the ongoing contract with ClearSprings to provide bail hostels in the community? I recently received conflicting replies from ClearSprings and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is responsible for prisons. When I asked whether there were any future plans for bail hostels from ClearSprings in Crewe. ClearSprings's reply was that it had no such plans, whereas the reply that I received from the Minister stated that
	one new property will be sourced.[ Official Report, 19 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 1120W.]
	There is apparent confusion in the Government's policy, so can we have a debate to clear it up?

Harriet Harman: I shall bring the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised to the attention of Ministers in the relevant Department. He might wish to ask a written question if he is not satisfied with the answer that he has received in the letter. May I congratulate him on running the marathon, although he did not run as fast as my deputy?

Clive Efford: I welcome the Government's concessions to the Gurkhas yesterday, but when they are published can we have a debate in the House? I sincerely hope that they will put the mistakes of last Friday behind us, because we will then be able to focus on the sheer naked opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition, whose party did nothing for the Gurkhas during 18 years of government.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will respond to the views of the House, and the House will be kept informed.

Gregory Campbell: It appears that the resource required in Northern Ireland to fund adequately the transfer of policing and justice powers in Northern Ireland is increasingly significant. When might we have a debate in the House to discuss and consider the long-term implications of such a possible move?

Harriet Harman: I will discuss that issue with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, if I may, get back to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

John Bercow: May we have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on the important report of the Rose review on the primary school curriculum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), amidst the enjoyable badinage in which he invariably specialises, declined or omitted to mention?

Harriet Harman: I understand that this consultation has been launched today, and no doubt the House will have an opportunity at questions and on further occasions to discuss the primary school curriculum.

Lorely Burt: May we have a debate on the iniquitous tax, IR35, which for the past 10 years has caused chaos and confusion for freelancers in this country? The tax is ambiguous and confusing, and it does not bring any money into the Treasury, so can we please debate it?

Harriet Harman: I will bring the points that the hon. Lady has made to the attention of Ministers in the Treasury, and she might find an opportunity to raise the matter in debates on the Finance Bill.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on women's rights? The Leader of the House will know that, like her, I have been a champion of women's rights over many years. I am not talking about the half-baked plans in the Equality Bill; I wish us to discuss, in particular, the extension of sharia council powers, which, in some circumstances, discriminate against some women in some ethnic minority communities.

Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State for Justice has said that when private arrangements based on sharia law are raised with the courts by way of an argument for a contract or a particular disposition in a family case to stand and those are contradicted by our laws on equality, they will not be taken into account.
	May I correct what I said about Sir Jim Rose's review? It is actually a review, which the Government have accepted, that will raise standards by prioritising literacy and numeracy and embedding them across the whole curriculum to ensure that all children leave school secure in the basics. It is not a consultation exercisethat has already taken place.

William Cash: The Leader of the House may know that the two reports that have just come out on Stafford hospital will not deal with the underlying lack of confidence in that hospital, welcome though they are in shedding some light on the situation. Does she accept that in order to get to the bottom of what has been going on, we need to have evidence on oath and the production of papers? Some evidence is emerging, which I am looking into, that some people in the hospital, who would be whistleblowers, are effectively being shut up by the authorities concernedthis is a very serious situation.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes a set of very serious allegations, and I think that the Health Secretary will want to address them when he gives his oral statement. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at that point.

Michael Penning: May I say to the Leader of the House that she cannot keep running away from a debate on Equitable Life? Her deputy is a long runner, but this is a marathon that the Government are not going to win. We need a debate on this, because thousands of people have lost out. They need the compensation that they deserve and that they have rightly been told they will get. May we have a debate on Equitable Life soon, before more of these people, sadly, die off and do not get the compensation that they deserve?

Harriet Harman: Work is under way on the investigation by the judge that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Paul Burstow: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1296, which concerns the case of Margaret Haywood, who was disgracefully struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for blowing the whistle on the neglect of older people in the hospital at which she worked?
	 [That this House supports nurse Margaret Haywood who raised issues of concern around poor patient care; believes that Margaret was justified in exposing the worrying conditions at her local hospital and that the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) was wrong to strike her off the nursing register; notes the e-petition in support of Margaret Haywood organised by the Royal College of Nursing; calls on the NMC to reverse its decision; and further calls on the Government to take steps to ensure that the procedures and protection afforded to whistleblowers are understood and applied by all in positions of responsibility in the NHS.]
	Is it not right that this House should have the opportunity to express its view about that case and the urgent need for this House to legislate to provide proper protection for frail and vulnerable older people and for those who blow the whistle on those who abuse them?

Harriet Harman: There will be a great deal of sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I shall draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. We must also ensure that there is consistency, so that if there are stringent penalties on nurses, such penalties operate in respect of people at all levels of the system. We should not find that there are much tougher rules for, and more stringent penalties on, nurses.

George Young: Next week, will the Modernisation Committee, which the Leader of the House chairs, be meeting? If not, can she tell us when it last met? If that was some time ago, will she consider transferring its responsibilities to the Procedure Committee, so that all Select Committees of the House are chaired by Back Benchers and not by members of the Cabinet?

Harriet Harman: If the right hon. Gentleman has issues that he would like the Modernisation Committee to address, perhaps he could write to me or just tell me what issues he thinks it should turn its attention to. The Modernisation Committee has worked well in partnership with the Procedure Committee and, on many issues, the Procedure Committee has taken things forward.

Michael Weir: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1190?
	 [ That this House notes that many firms have introduced short time working for employees during this time of recession; further notes that many workers who are in receipt of tax credits are facing difficulties as the reduction in hours takes them below the minimum hours required to qualify for tax credits; and calls on the Government to take action to ensure that those who are so affected are deemed to still be working for the minimum hours and that their tax credits are maintained until such time as t heir hours are reinstated.]
	This is an increasing problem during the recession. May we have a debate in Government time on the possibility of reducing the minimum hours necessary to qualify for tax credit during the recession?

Harriet Harman: The early-day motion and the hon. Gentleman's comments show a good recognition of the flexibility of tax credits in making up for shorter working hours by boosting the family income. He makes a proposal in the early-day motion, supported by other hon. Members, and I will ensure that the Treasury responds to him.

David Evennett: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a general debate on London so that we can raise a wide variety of London issues and highlight the successes of the first year of the Boris Johnson mayoralty?

Harriet Harman: I do not know where to start on the complaints and concerns of many hon. Members who represent London constituencies. The most alarming has been the abandonment of the requirement that developments must include a minimum amount of social housing. That is a big problem when we need more social housing. Perhaps I should ask the Ministers with responsibility for housing whether we should have a debate on the Mayor of London's sell-out on social housing.

Mark Hunter: The Christie charity, which supports the world-famous Christie cancer care centre in Manchester, stands to lose some 6.5 million as a result of the Icelandic banking collapse. As there are some 30 charities that stand to lose more than 50 million for the same reason, is it not time that we had a debate on the Government's handling of the situation?

Harriet Harman: I will consider how best Ministers can update the House on this issue. The hon. Gentleman will know that constant work is being done on the issue by various Departments and the administrators of the Icelandic banks. It is hoped that most of those caught out by the collapse will get a large portion of their deposits back.

Julian Lewis: According to the leaked British National party manual Language and Concepts Discipline, the term racial foreigners should be used to describe black and Asian Britons, because such people do not exist. Given the forthcoming candidacy of BNP leader Nick Griffin, may we have a statement from the appropriate Minister on the role of proportional representation in making it far more likely that fascists, racists and neo-Nazis will get into the European Parliament?

Harriet Harman: Justice questions is on Tuesday, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise those issues with the Department with responsibility for electoral law. He makes an important point, and the message from all of us who deplore and abhor racism and division of the sort peddled by the BNP is that everybody must vote on 4 June. Anybody who does not vote is helping the BNP get into the European Parliament and it would be shameful if Britain were to be represented by racists and fascists.

Bob Spink: May we have a debate on the safety implications of the operation of the Calor Gas Canvey Island site in the light of the spillage on 27 October last year of 163 tonnes of liquid propane gas, the operation of the leak detection equipment and the abject failure even now to inform Canvey residents about the leakespecially in the light of Buncefield?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Ministers responsible to write to the hon. Gentleman, who is assiduous on behalf of his constituents on such issues.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May we have a debate on the situation of the nuclear academies, the Government's flagship method of training for the future civil nuclear programme? In the south-west, the regional development agency is holding up the funding for the nuclear academy in Bridgwater. We need an urgent debate on that because we must start building soon to provide for the future of the civil nuclear programme.

Harriet Harman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the civil nuclear programme. He highlights the important role of the RDAs, and I point out to him and to other hon. Members that they would have an opportunity to hold RDAs to account for the work that they do in their regions if they attended the Regional Select Committees.

John Leech: Thousands of former council tenants in south Manchester were promised that they would be no worse off if they voted for transfer to a housing association, but they are now being short-changed by the Government's decision not to include housing associations in the lower rent increase. Will the Leader of the House meet the Minister for Housing and make proposals for fully compensating those people?

Harriet Harman: Several housing issues have emerged today, including the need to ensure that a certain percentage of social housing is included in planning permissions, the question of service charges and the housing association rents that the hon. Gentleman raises. All those issues bear examination and we may look for an opportunity to debate housing. The House will know that the housing sector has been affected by the global credit crunch, but we need many new houses.
	I know that hon. Members want me to answer briefly on these points, but I shall now take a little more time. I know that the House is looking forward to the Foreign Secretary's statement, but unfortunately he is not here yet.

Mark Harper: The Leader of the House will know that the ministerial code says that when Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament. Last week, when she published the Equality Billwhich was not available to Members until Mondayshe should have restrained herself from giving on-the-record briefings and making media appearances over the weekend on details in the Bill that were not previously available to Members. If the Leader of the House, who is supposed to be the guardian of the interests of Back Benchers, cannot make announcements to the House first, the concept of the Government's accountability to Parliament is clearly dead and buried for this Government.

Harriet Harman: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is especially relevant to statements. If hon. Members are coming to the House to hear a statement, they should have the opportunity to ask the first questions on it, rather than being the second in line after those questions have been asked by a presenter on the Today programme or another media outlet. On the publication of Bills, the situation is slightly different. Action on gender pay gaps, positive action and the duty to narrow the gap between rich and poor have all been the subject of consultations and statements. I know that the hon. Gentleman has written to me on this issue, and I have thought carefully about it, but I find myself not guilty in that respect. I am sure that that will reassure him.

Greg Mulholland: We need a debate on the conduct and competence of Home Office staff at immigration appeal tribunals. I attended one such hearing on 30 March in Bradford for my constituent Enid Ruhango, who is a victim of torture and rape in Uganda. As the hearing was about to start, the Home Office staff withdrew the entire decision, meaning that no appeal could be madeit was a complete farce. They then promised a new decision within 10 working days, but it has now been a month. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 30 March, but I have had no reply. This is not good enough for someone in such a position. When can MPs call the Home Office to account for such farces?

Harriet Harman: There will always be occasions on which the Home Office decides on appeal that it will withdraw its case. I have more immigration cases coming through my constituency office than any other Member, and I know that there has been a big improvement in the promptness, accuracy and courtesy with which the Home Office deals with cases, and we should put that on the record. There will always be cases in which things go wrong, including human error or facts that are discovered later in the process that mean that a decision has to be changed. Overall, however, Home Office staff are doing a good and important job, and improving how they do it.

Martin Horwood: We all hope that pandemic flu, even though it now seems pretty inevitable, will not prove too dangerous for people in the United Kingdom. However, has the Leader of the House thought through the implications for this place if it does prove dangerous? On the face of it, gathering a representative from every community in the United Kingdom, putting them in one Chamber, forcing them through old-fashioned crowded Lobbies and then redistributing them to every part of the United Kingdom sounds like the perfect transmission mechanism. Is this perhaps not a good time to try out more modern methods of voting, such as electronic voting?

Harriet Harman: The House of Commons Commission has contingency arrangements, which include the emergency planning arrangements for swine flu.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I thank hon. Members, as we got through 34 Back-Bench contributions and two Front-Bench contributions in 46 minutes? I thank the Leader of the House for her answers, too. It shows what can be done.

Sri Lanka

David Miliband: I am not sure whether I can compete with that number of questions and answers in the next 45 minutes, but we will try our best.
	With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the civilian crisis in Sri Lanka. I am very grateful to all Members of the House who contributed to yesterday's important debate on the subject. I returned this morning from a visit to Sri Lanka with the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. I regret very much that the Sri Lankan authorities declined to allow our Swedish counterpart, Carl Bildt, to join us. Our visit to Sri Lanka was prompted by our increasing concern and that of many international colleagues, as well as of many Members of this House, for civilians in the north of the country, and in particular for the plight of the civilian Tamil population.
	There are in fact two crises: that of the civilians trapped in the conflict zone as the Government enter the final stage of their fight with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam terrorists, and that of the thousands of civilians who have crossed over the front line in recent days. The purpose of the visit was threefold: first, to highlight the need to bring the conflict to an end in a way that minimises further civilian casualties; secondly, to press the case for the humanitarian relief effort to be ratcheted up, as the United Nations and the European Union have been calling for; and, thirdly, to make clear the need for a long-term political settlement that meets the aspirations of all communities in Sri Lanka.
	Foreign Minister Kouchner and I met President Rajapaksa, Foreign Minister Bogollagama, the leader of the Opposition, Tamil and Muslim mainstream politicians and a series of permanent secretaries of the relevant Government Departments. We were briefed by the heads of the main United Nations agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We also visited a Government-run camp for internally displaced people at Vavuniya and visited a field hospital donated by the French Government. I heard a number of personal testimonies from recent arrivals in the camp. I am grateful for the way in which the Sri Lankan Government facilitated our visit.
	The fog of war makes it difficult to be certain of the facts of the present situation. This is compounded by the lack of access for international agencies and the media. I heard widely different estimates of the number of civilians still trapped in the conflict zone. Government estimates ranged from 6,000 to 20,000 people. The UN, the ICRC and most others believe that there are at least 50,000. Some thought that the number could be as high as 100,000. Whatever the truth, it is clear that significant numbers remain, living under appalling conditions, under-nourished and in fear for their lives. I heard reports of civilians hiding in trenches to escape the shelling and of horrific injuries. I also spoke to people in the internally displaced person camps who recounted how the LTTE had forced them to stay in the so-called no-fire zone against their will and shot at them when they tried to flee.
	We were told that 30 tonnes of food were delivered to the conflict zone between 1 April and 27 April, apparently enough to feed 60,000 people for just one day. A further ship delivered limited supplies during our visit. The ICRC has been able to send in only very limited medical supplies, despite having plentiful stocks in Sri Lanka. The block on deliveries of food and medical supplies hinges on security. To deliver these essentials to those innocent civilians trapped in the conflict zone, there needs to be safety. Ships take time to unload and the pauses provided by the Sri Lankan Government have not been long enough. As the House knows, the Government of Sri Lanka declared an end to so-called combat operations on 27 April. The President and Defence Secretary confirmed this to me personally and in definite terms. These commitments must be upheld.
	In our discussions with the President and the Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Kouchner and I made it clear that the protection of civilians must be paramount. We emphasised that if the LTTE had any heart at all, it would let the civilians leave the conflict zone. As G8 Foreign Ministers said in their statement on 25 April, we were also very clear that the time for the conflict to end is now.
	We were briefed in detail by the Sri Lankan authorities on their humanitarian relief efforts outside the conflict zone. We welcomed this exchange of information, the extensive work that was under way and the commitments that the Government of Sri Lanka made. Nevertheless, some of what we were told was in contradiction to the information given to us by the international humanitarian agencies.
	Let me go through the facts as we understand them. According to the UN, 161,765 Tamils have left the conflict zone since October last year, including an estimated 119,000 in the past 10 days. This is very welcome, but the numbers have seriously challenged the Sri Lankan authorities. The UN agencies we spoke to were frustrated that the Government appear to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of them and others who are trying to assist the Government in dealing with this crisis. The agencies lack any access to IDPs until the IDPs have already been through the preliminary screening process. They do not have full access to the camps, and visas and authorisations to move people and goods into and around the country are too limited. Meanwhile, people are not being allowed out of the camps and many families have been separated. Some men, alleged to be LTTE cadres, have been taken from families and placed in so-called rehabilitation camps. All that reinforces the need for full and unhindered access by the UN and other agencies.
	We therefore in the course of our visit returned again and again in our talks to five specific points in respect of the humanitarian situation: first, the need for visas to be issued swiftly to international humanitarian staff; secondly, the subject of travel permits for staff working on approved projects inside Sri Lanka; thirdly, the need for full access to IDPs as soon as they have crossed the front line and the monitoring of all stages of screening; fourthly, the need for a proper resettlement programme with specific deadlines to fulfil the Government's commitment to have 80 per cent. of IDPs resettled by year's end; and, fifthly, to allow the distribution of sufficient food and medicine to meet the needs of civilians trapped in the conflict zone. We were promised intensive follow-up by the Sri Lankan Government and we will continue to engage with them on all these issues.
	At present, the Sri Lankan Government are engaged in a war without witness in the north of the country. Civilians have fled the terror of the LTTE, but are afraid of what awaits them at the hands of the Government and unsure whether they will ever be allowed home. We were given assurances by the Sri Lankan Government that they had nothing to hide. We responded that it could therefore only be to the benefit of the Sri Lankan people and the Sri Lankan Government to work with the international community in a fully transparent way. By giving UN agencies and international non-governmental organisations the freedom to operate to capacity in all areas, the Sri Lankan Government would not only bring much needed relief to thousands of traumatised or injured people but attract greater confidence from the international community.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) will take up the invitation of President Rajapaksa and visit Sri Lanka as part of a cross-party group of MPs next week and will pursue these points. The other members of the group will be the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Buckingham (John Bercow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar). I share the gratitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that they have agreed to take part in this important visit at short notice. I will be visiting New York on 11 May for UN Security Council business and will pursue further UN involvement in the crisis. I will be discussing with Secretary Clinton tonight, as well as with other like-minded colleagues, how we can work more closely together to find a way to bring the fighting to a stop.
	No one should underestimate the murderous damage done to Sri Lanka over the last 26 years by the LTTE, or the sheer hatred felt for its leadership. That is recognised in the international community, but while terrorist organisations work by killing people, democratic governments exist to protect them. That is why the fighting in Sri Lanka must end now. The LTTE is apparently cornered and trapped, having inflicted grievous suffering on the people of Sri Lanka, primarily Sinhalese and Tamil, but also Muslims. How the conflict is ended will have a direct bearing on the prospects for long-term peace in the country. The Government there must win the peace as well as the war. That will be the continuing focus of this Government's activity, hand in hand with international partners, in the days and weeks ahead.

William Hague: May I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House to make this statement? It was surely right for him to travel to Sri Lanka with the French Foreign Minister to highlight our deep concern about the civilian situation there and about the other issues that he has mentioned. He was also right to urge the Government of Sri Lanka to live up to their obligations, and to call on the LTTE to allow civilians to leave the conflict zone. All hon. Members across the House support the right hon. Gentleman in making that mission and in what he has said today. We also wish to register our emphatic dissatisfaction that Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, was denied a visa to join him on the visit.
	I want to raise two sets of questionsthe first about the needs of civilians caught up in the fighting, and the second about efforts to secure a real ceasefire. On the humanitarian situation, the UN has said that there have been 6,500 civilian deaths since January. Moreover, as the Foreign Secretary said, according to the UN at least 50,000 people are still trapped in the conflict zone. Those are the statistics, but we should always bear it in mind that they mean that entirely innocent human beings are caught up in a situation of absolute horror, and that many thousands of people in Britain are deeply worried every minute of the day about the safety of their friends and relatives.
	Is it not a deeply depressing aspect of the conflict that both sides appear to have contributed to such massive civilian suffering? Reports that the LTTE has forcibly recruited young men to fight and used civilians as human shields are abhorrent. There are still conflicting reports about the use of heavy weaponry in the conflict zone. The Sri Lankan Defence Minister said yesterday that there would be
	absolutely no more heavy shelling,
	but reports this morning suggest that that promise may have been broken. Has the Foreign Secretary made any assessment of that, in view of the definite assurances that he has received and to which he referred in his statement?
	We accept, of course, that the lack of access to the conflict area makes it very difficult for the Foreign Secretary to know the answer to this question, but can he give us his understanding of what the
	cessation of heavy military combat
	means on the ground? Does it mean that civilians are still caught up in fighting with lighter weapons? The Foreign Secretary has been to Sri Lanka, although he was not able to visit that specific areawhat is his view on that?
	There are also two crucial issues related to access to the conflict zone. First, we understand that aid agencies and convoys are still not allowed in to help, and secondly, we also regret the fact that the UN Secretary-General's humanitarian team has still not been allowed to enter. Did the Foreign Secretary receive any rational explanation of why the Government of Sri Lanka continue to reject that vital assistance? Did he get any indication that their attitude will change?
	It is clear that the Foreign Secretary has tried to insist on greater access. Considering the situation in the camps, what else does he think can be done to persuade Colombo to change its position? In his view, is the apparent screening of people held in camps leading to breaches of human rights? In the light of the reports of screening, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the Sri Lankan Government are on track to meet their commitment to return 80 per cent. of the people in the camps to their places of origin by the end of this year?
	Finally, does the Foreign Secretary also agree that recent sustained signs of a deterioration in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka as a whole are of concern? In particular, there have been reports of abductions and disappearances, as well as of intimidation of the media and so on. Does he agree that it is strongly in Sri Lanka's interests for those reports to be thoroughly and independently investigated?
	My second set of questions concerns efforts to secure a ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary has been quite rightly pressing for a ceasefire that allows the humanitarian situation to be dealt with. It is disappointing that his efforts and pleas have been refused, subject to how we are to define what the Sri Lankan Government have announced so far. Does the right hon. Gentleman see any prospect for any further initiatives, and what is the next step in the process? Is there any prospect of formal UN Security Council involvement? Presumably, that would be very difficult to secure, given the position of Russia and China. Can he confirm reports that the US Government have suggested that they might withdraw their support for the $1.9 billion International Monetary Fund package for Sri Lanka's central bank unless the Government do more to help trapped civilians? Has he discussed that with the US Secretary of State, and what is the UK Government's position on the matter?
	Does the Foreign Secretary see any scope for the Commonwealth, of which Sri Lanka is of course a member, to use its influence to bring about an improvement in the situation? That is especially important as Sri Lanka sits on the Commonwealth's ministerial action group, and is responsible for upholding the Commonwealth's core principles and values.
	We all hope that the forthcoming visit by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) and his colleagues will help to improve matters, and we wish him well. Some kind of end to the immediate fighting may be in sight, but we agree with the Foreign Secretary that long-term stability can be achieved only through a settlement that satisfies the concerns and legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans, and that preserves democracy in that country.
	We all hope that Sri Lanka's longer-term future will be one of peace, stability and economic development, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that the country will need allies and partners across the world, and respect for the policies that it pursues? Does that not make a compelling case for Sri Lanka, in its own interests, to heed international calls to protect civilians and to prevent human rights abuses for the remainder of this tragic and continuing crisis?

David Miliband: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for his broad support for the calls that we have been making. It is notable that they have been echoed right across the House, and that can only be a good thing. He almost asked 46 questions on his own, never mind leaving room for 46 in the whole session, but I shall try to run through as many answers as possible.
	The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that there are continued reports about the use of heavy weaponry since Monday, when the first announcement was made by the Government of Sri Lanka that heavy weaponry would not be used. I deliberately did not refer to those reports in my statement, because at this stage they are only reports and it is very important that we get to the bottom of the facts. However, I am absolutely clear that the international community has been assuredvery clearly and in definitive termsby Sri Lanka's President and Defence Secretary and others that heavy munitions as well as aerial and naval bombardments will not be used. In that context, credible evidence that they have been used would have very serious repercussions for the relationship between Sri Lanka and the rest of the world.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the end of heavy combat operations meant that civilians in the conflict zone were somehow safe. I cannot give him that assurance but, as he intimated, the Sri Lankan Government's efforts to capture the leadership of the LTTE will continue, with the result that the danger of civilians being caught in crossfire will remain.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the aid agencies. There was a delivery on Monday, and a further one yesterday. A 1,000-tonne ICRC vessel is waiting to make another delivery, but the way that shipments are unloaded means that that takes three or four days. The fact that there is not the security to allow that to happen has been a major focus for us. I know that the House will have seen that the ICRC has put out a very strong statement today setting out its concern about the situation, and that tallies with what I have reported this morning.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon's team, which was the product of talks that his chief of staff, Mr. Nambiar, held with the Sri Lankan Government nearly two weeks ago. It was reported to the UN Security Council that a team would be allowed into the conflict zone to assess the humanitarian needs. In addition, however, and rather separately from what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the team would try to make provision for civilians to leave. That mission is now being denied by the Sri Lankan Government, and in fact they are saying that there never was any agreement for a UN Secretary-General mission to go to the area.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any rational explanation for Sri Lanka's rejection of that assistance. The Sri Lankan Government have said that the team would not be safe in the conflict zone, but it is obviously a source of great concern that something could be reported to the UN Security Council as an agreement but then not followed through. The UN Secretary-General's determination last Thursday after I spoke to him to dispatch the team to Colombo shows that the UN sees no practical obstacles to its reaching the area.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the return of 80 per cent. of people in IDP camps to their places of origin by December, and I think that the most important thing is to get a proper schedule. The main practical obstacle is the number of mines that exist in the country. The Sri Lankan Government want help with demining, but they must make sure that there is proper access if that help is to be forthcoming.
	The right hon. Gentleman was right to mention the humanitarian problems in Sri Lanka as a whole, and that is a problem to which we have referred in written and oral statements to the House before. The killing of journalists is notable among those problems, and all friends of Sri Lanka will be concerned to ensure that its democratic heritage is upheld, because this is a time when Sri Lanka needs its democracy more than ever.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the involvement of the UN. He will know that Britain, France and the US raised the issue at the UN last week, under any other business. We have not yet been able to get it on to the formal agenda of the UN. The blockage does not come only from the two countries that he has mentioned, but obviously the New York special session on the middle east on Monday week will be an opportunity at least to try to take the agenda forward.
	We are duty bound to look extremely carefully at the situation on the ground should any plan be presented to the IMF board. It is a basic tenet of the work of the IMF that any money should be put to good use, and that requires taking a close look at the situation on the ground, which is what we will do.
	The right hon. Gentleman will know that Members of this House as well as the Government have approached the Commonwealth Secretary-General about Sri Lanka. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the prospects of progress in that sphere are rather limited by the make-up of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, and its practice of taking action only against countries that suspend their own democracy.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about Sri Lanka's need for allies in the future. That is evident from the scale of the humanitarian crisis with which it has to deal. Certainly my message and that of Foreign Minister Kouchner to President Rajapaksa yesterday was that Sri Lanka needed its friends and the international community, but the only way to keep them was to live up to the standards expected of a democratic Government.

Andrew Love: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on undertaking this initiative along with the French Foreign Secretary. It shows the priority given by the UK and French Governments to achieving a ceasefire. I refer my right hon. Friend to his letter to Members yesterday. He outlined three priorities, the first of which was to bring the conflict to an end. We all recognise that that is the most important initiative if we are to undertake the two further priorities that he outlined. My right hon. Friend said that he would be going to the UN and meeting the American Secretary of State over the weekend. Can he outline some of the discussions that he is likely to have and what initiatives he will put to them to ensure that we achieve that objective at the earliest possible time?

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in this issue. The discussions will focus on the items that we all agree are essentialthe humanitarian crisis and how to get access for the UN agencies and their aid, but also how to fashion a halt to the fighting, and then in the longer term to ensure that some kind of political process is developed to respect all Sri Lanka's minorities. I will discuss that with Secretary Clinton tonight.
	Last night when I met many from the diplomatic community, I found one of the remarkable things was that high commissioners and ambassadors from countries around the world wanted to talk about how they could join the coalition for change in Sri Lanka. There is a real sense in the international community that there needs to be a coherent and focused engagement. When I spoke to Foreign Minister Bildt this morning on his way to Washington, he was clear that he wanted to remain engaged despite the denial of a visa to him.

Edward Davey: May I start by wholeheartedly thanking the Foreign Secretary for making his trip to Sri Lanka and reporting back to the House immediately on his return? He has clearly read at least some of the debate that we had in the Chamber yesterday, and I hope that he finds the unity that we achieved and the tributes paid to him in his absence a small reward for his efforts. However, I also know that the rewards that he and all of us really seek are a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance and a settlement that brings peace and justice to all in the island of Sri Lanka.
	The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that he was promised intensive follow-up by the Sri Lankan Government. Can he say what that actually means in terms of the timetable for enabling humanitarian assistance to get through, for media access and for the access of UN monitors, which is so important? He may also have noted the calls yesterday in the House for a major increase in diplomatic pressure on the political and military leaders on all sides, on top of what he is already doing, in order to secure a ceasefire. For example, surely we should be using the proposed IMF loan as leverage, telling the Sri Lankan Government that unless they listen to the reasonable humanitarian requests of the international community, that loan will not be forthcoming. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with other Governments, especially Japan's, about producing a package of financial sanctions, such as an end to non-emergency development aid, that will be imposed on the Government of Sri Lanka if they fail to listen to the humanitarian requests?
	Can the Foreign Secretary confirm a pledge that the Government made in the House yesterday that they support an early investigation into all allegations of war crimes and crimes against international humanitarian law? Has that message been conveyed to both sides? If not, will he ensure that all leaders in the conflict are reminded directly that there can be consequences, including personal consequences, to their actions?
	The right hon. Gentleman will also know it has been alleged that what is happening in Sri Lanka amounts to genocide. Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office yet sought legal advice on whether that is what might be happening? If not, can he now request that such advice is sought?
	Can the Foreign Secretary make special arrangements for all Members of the House, from all parties, who have worked so hard on this issue to be fully briefed by the FCO over the next few crucial days, weeks and months so that we can provide as much information as possible to our constituents who have families and friends who are suffering in Sri Lanka?

David Miliband: I am grateful for the interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in this issue and for the spirit of unity that he has sought to help to develop. I think that that can be sustained. The timetable for the intensive work started this morning. Sri Lankan time is four and a half hours ahead of us, but as I left the Foreign Minister last night in Colombo, he was clear that he would be attending to this as a matter of urgency. He had cancelled various trips and was focusing on it. We will continue to engage. Meetings are planned by people in the country, and I will be making sure that they happen. Some of them are still to be scheduled, but time is of the essence. That is why there is a sense of real urgency about this work and why the bold statement by the ICRC today is further testimony to the need for urgent action.
	As I said in response to an earlier question, any IMF programme needs to be credibly implemented. That depends on the situation on the ground. We will look carefully and with due diligence at any proposals by the IMF authorities to take forward the suggestion of the Government of Sri Lanka that they want an IMF loan.
	I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Japan on Tuesday morning. Obviously, Japan is an important player; it is a co-chair as well as a generous donor. In all the work that we do, we shall be concerned to avoid harm to the citizens of Sri Lanka of any community and to make sure that they do not lose out but, in saying that Sri Lanka needs its friends, it is implicit that it must uphold the standards of behaviour expected by its friends. I believe that that is important.
	I stand four-square behind what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said last night at the close of the debate. Our standing position is that any allegations of war crimes by any side in any conflict need to be urgently, independently and credibly investigated, and that remains the case in this conflict. As it happens, the focus of the aid agencies yesterday morning, and of the UN, is on the immediate issues, for obvious reasons that I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, but I am happy to reaffirm the position of the Government on war crimes.

Keith Vaz: A British Foreign Secretary must be incredibly busy. I would like to just say to my right hon. Friend how proud I am of him for changing his diary and travelling thousands of miles in search of peace. The whole House is grateful for what he has done.
	Echoing the sentiments of the shadow Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I suggest that the IMF loan is important. In his conversation with Hillary Clinton this evening, I hope that my right hon. Friend will convey to her the feelings of the whole House on the matter. In all his conversations and the huge efforts that he is making, please will he not forget the Indian Government? It is vital that we keep in touch with the Foreign Minister of India. I know that India is in the middle of elections, but it has a crucial role to play in ensuring that there is peace in this troubled island. I thank my right hon. Friend again for all that he has done.

David Miliband: I am extremely grateful for the heartfelt thanks from my right hon. Friend although, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, there will be no reward for any of us unless there is some alleviation of the suffering in Sri Lanka. I know that that is very much my right hon. Friend's position as well because he has campaigned long and tirelessly on this issue.
	The IMF question will certainly be addressed in many of the conversations that occur about this issue, and the situation on the ground will be very important in those discussions.
	I spoke to Foreign Minister Mukherjee last week, and although he is in the middle of the election campaign, he has given important priority to this issue. As my right hon. Friend says, India is a vital player when it comes to change in Sri Lanka. Notwithstanding the challenges of the election campaign, I spoke to the Indian high commissioner in Colombo last night. He reiterated the Indian Government's concern, and I reiterated that I would soon be in touch again with Foreign Minister Mukherjee, becauseelection campaign, or no election campaignthis is obviously a matter of high concern to the Indian Government.

Lee Scott: May I join colleagues from both sides of the House in thanking the Foreign Secretary for what he is trying to achieve for peace? I have taken on board everything that he said about the Commonwealth committee, but has the time not come, as people are dying every day, to call for Sri Lanka's suspension from the Commonwealth?

David Miliband: I totally understand the sense of frustration that the hon. Gentleman feels, given that the circumstances are indeed dire in Sri Lanka. As he knows, the Commonwealth has only ever suspended countries on the basis of the violation of its democratic norms, which are at the heart of the rather ironically titled Harare declarationirony is not really a strong enough word, but the House will know what I meanand that may be a good or a bad precedent, but that is the fact of how the Commonwealth works. Sri Lanka is one of the members of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which works only by consensus, and that is why the secretary-general has appointed to the limits of what the Commonwealth can do in this area. Obviously, we have a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting coming up, but frankly that is too far away, given the immediate needs that exist, and that is why it is right that we pursue progress via other channels at the moment.

Joan Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for making the trip that he has just made and for acting to protect innocent civilians in Sri Lanka. I hope that other leading politicians and statespeople around the world will see that as an example that it is important to stand up and be counted, and we are grateful that he has done that on behalf of the whole House.
	My right hon. Friend referred to the statement of 27 April and the Government of Sri Lanka saying that they had ended combat operations. I wonder whether he could say a little bit more about whether we can have confidence in that, particularly given that we have not achieved a ceasefire.
	May I press another point with my right hon. Friend? I am pleased that he is going to the UN shortly, but despite the difficulties of achieving a UN resolution for the reasons that we have discussed before, it is very important that we continue every diplomatic effort possible with all members of the Security Council to make it absolutely clear that if it is not possible to achieve a resolution because of the veto, the overwhelming majority of that council's members totally support such a resolution if achieving one is possible.

David Miliband: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue. I wish that a large majority of the UN Security Council supported action on the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made the rather important point when I met him last week that, when he was in New York last week, all the demonstrations happening there were outside the buildings of countries that supported UN action. I fear that that number is not very large and certainly not large enough, but she can be assured that I will continue to work with all countries around the world on the issue.
	The first question that my right hon. Friend asked was about the commitment to end so-called combat operations, or heavy mortar fire and the use of naval and air power. What I and Foreign Minister Kouchner said to the President and what we repeated to the Foreign Minister was that there could be no greater word of honour placed by the President and Defence Secretary of a country to two visiting Foreign Ministers but that the use of such weaponry will end. That is why, given that the stakes are so high on that word being its bond, we ensure that we bottom out all reports before we comment on them. The consequences could not be more serious for a country to promise that it will not use heavy weaponry and then to do so. That is why all reports or rumours need to be investigated. Equally, it is incumbent on me to be careful before making accusations that are not wholly well founded and well researched.

Stephen Hammond: May I echo the words of thanks of other hon. Members to the Foreign Secretary and the comments made from both Front Benches that there is clearly fault on both sides in the dispute? The Foreign Secretary will be well aware that the humanitarian crisis for innocent Tamil civilians concerns the whole House. Although we take on board his comments that he was assured that the Sri Lankan Government had nothing to hide, given the blockages at the UN can he tell us what confidence he has that the Government of Sri Lanka will react to international pressure, particularly on the five points that he outlined and especially on the humanitarian visas given to outside organisations?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will not start giving percentages, marks out of 10 or grades of confidence, but those five issues are much higher on the agenda today than they were on Tuesday, before Foreign Minister Kouchner and I went. Tragically, for some Tamil civilians it is too late. That should drive us forward, to ensure that no time is lost on following through on these issues. It is very important that we recognise that democratic Governments are held to higher standards than terrorist organisations. I made that point in my statement. It recurs in a number of parts of the world where democratic Governments may feel frustration at the limits that are imposed on them in how they conduct their operations, but those limits are imposed for very good reason: if we do not defend the values that we are meant to uphold in the way that we attack terrorism, we fall to standards that we should not even consider. The fact that the LTTE is preventing civilians from leaving the combat zone says everything that we need to know about where its interests lie, but it is vital that the Government of Sri Lanka rise above thatthey need to find a way that builds a peace as well as wins the war, and we are trying to work with them to achieve that.

Siobhain McDonagh: I do not want my right hon. Friend to become big-headed, but on behalf of my constituents may I say how proud I was that he took the time to go to Sri Lanka? That was a really brave decision, and we will be for ever in his debt for doing it. But we always want more of our friends, so may I ask that he does everything he can at the UN Security Council? I do not wish to frighten him, but a number of Members are going round to all the London embassies of the Security Council's members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and I have recently come back from the Austrian embassy. We went to see the Costa Ricans last week. We are overwhelmed by their great confidence in the leadership of the UK Government and their willingness to support them in any way they can. We therefore believe that a large number of countries want to support my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his efforts and are there to back him up. Finally, if he can find the time in his busy day, could he possibly meet a similar delegation of UK young Tamils to talk about his visit to Sri Lanka?

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has shown determination and passion in abundance in standing up for her constituents on this issue. The work done by parliamentarians and civilians around the world is exactly what we want in a democracy, and I applaud the peaceful and diplomatic discussions that she has undertaken. Well, perhaps they are not always diplomatic, but she knows what I meanthe sometimes diplomatic but always passionate discussions that she undertakes. I can certainly confirm that we are in touch with as many countries as we can find, because this important issue requires the coalition that we have been trying to build for some time but that is now beginning to come to fruition.

Barry Gardiner: May I, too, commend my right hon. Friend for the courageous and determined way that he has pursued peace in Sri Lanka? What reasons did the Sri Lankan Government give for not agreeing to an immediate ceasefire, for blocking relief aid into the area and for not allowing transparent, independent access to the media and human rights organisations? Will our Government now consider ensuring that the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in 2011 is not hosted by Sri Lanka, as it wishes?

David Miliband: As I said in my statement, the Sri Lankan Government did not have the same rendition of the facts as the agencies about the delivery of various forms of aid. They denied allegations that they were blocking aid, and it is important that we follow through on that in detail. On the ceasefire, they argue that they need to prosecute their military campaign against the LTTE to its end. They pointrightly, actuallyto the fact that they have made more advances in the past three or four months than anyone expected and that 120,000 citizens have been got out of the conflict zone. While they put forward those arguments we, in return, have emphasised the paramount importance of protecting civilians' lives, as we will continue to do.

Adam Price: Given the Sri Lankan Government's stated intent to continue this war without witness, to use the Foreign Secretary's term, will the Government suspend any UK arms export licences to Sri Lanka with immediate effect? What steps is he taking to prevent the sale of munitions, including artillery shells, to the Sri Lankan military by EU countries? If we did not take such steps, would we not be complicit in any further civilian deaths?

David Miliband: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we, alongside other European countries, have the toughest arms export criteria in the world. There has never been a shred of evidence to suggest that the Sri Lankan Government have used British artillery. We will continue to impose that tough arms control regime in everything that we do.

Phyllis Starkey: May I add my thanks to the Foreign Secretary? My constituents in the Milton Keynes Tamil association will be heartened by the seriousness with which he is taking his concerns, as he demonstrated by going to Sri Lanka with Mr. Kouchner. May I focus on one of his five pointsfull access to the IDPs? There is huge concern among the Tamil community about the way in which men are being screened out of the IDPs and assumed to be part of the LTTE, just because they are male Tamils. Will he ensure that that point is not lost as part of all the other issues that he is rightly pursing at the UN and in other places?

David Miliband: This is an important point. Some young Tamil men have been taken for rehabilitation, although not all of them. It is important that I say that I talked to many young men at the IDP camp that I saw yesterday, as well as womenboth younger and older. One reason why we have been emphasising the need for UN access throughout the non-conflict area is precisely to address that concern of my hon. Friend and her constituents, which we will continue to raise.

David Burrowes: On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the Foreign Secretary's commitment to end a conflict that has caused such suffering and destruction. Given his statement that this is a war without witness, will he prioritise ensuring that there is proper UN monitoring and freedom of the press so that democratic values and a respect for human rights can be restored to Sri Lanka and, especially, the Tamil people?

David Miliband: Yes; that is certainly an important part of our work.

Paul Burstow: On behalf of the Tamil community in my constituency, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his trip and everything that his Ministers are doing to raise my Tamil constituents' concerns.
	May I press the Foreign Secretary on a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about seeking legal opinion on whether genocide, under the convention definition, is indeed happening? Has legal advice been sought, and if not, will he do so? Does he agree that only a political process, not a victory on the battlefield, will in the end deliver the justice and peace that people in Sri Lanka deserve?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to say that only a political process can deliver that. I want to give him an accurate reply about the state of our legal advice, or lack of it, so I will write to him about that.

Simon Hughes: May I say, hopefully by way of encouragement to the Foreign Secretary and all of us, that in response to the strong, united view of the House yesterday and his actions, the last of the hunger strikers in the UK gave up his hunger strike this afternoon? Will the Foreign Secretary continue to concentrate on ensuring not only that we have the ceasefire that is immediately wanted, but that independent people will have the ability to watch what then happens on the ground, because only such presence in the days following any end to conflict will give confidence that there will not be further human rights violations of people in the Tamil community in the north of Sri Lanka?

David Miliband: Too many lives have been lost at other people's hands for people to take their own lives in the search for change in Sri Lanka. We will certainly continue to make the case for independent access. The central message that we delivered yesterday was that with aid must come access. It is vital for Sri Lanka's reputation, as well as the well-being of its people, that there is independent access for people of only good intentin my experience, they are the brave people of the UN, the ICRC and the aid agencies, who want access to do goodso we should do everything possible to encourage it.

Point of Order

Tobias Ellwood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has today made a major announcement on internet gambling. You might not be aware of that because the announcement was made not in the Chamber or as a written statement, but on page four of the  Financial Times. The Department has now also come out with a press release. Do you agree that such announcements should be made in the Chamber so that we have the opportunity to comment about them?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to read the article he mentions, perhaps I will be able to write to him about itthat is the best way to proceed.

Members' Allowances

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the business of the House order that was agreed yesterday, the six motions on Members' allowances, financial interests and Members' staff will be debated together in a single debate. At the end of the debate, and no later than 5 o'clock, I will put successively the Questions on each motion and any amendments selected that are then moved. My selection of amendments is available in the usual way.

Harriet Harman: I beg to move motion 1,
	(1) That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's decision of 23 March 2009 to invite the Committee on Standards in Public Life to inquire into Members' allowances;
	(2) That it is necessary to recognise the additional costs incurred by hon. Members as a result of the need for them to undertake parliamentary duties both in Westminster and their constituency;
	(3) That, in the opinion of this House, any new arrangements relating to Members' allowances ought to
	(a) take account of hon. Members' attendance at Westminster,
	(b) be transparent and accountable, and
	(c) reduce the existing annual limits on the allowances which hon. Members may claim, producing overall cost savings;
	(4) That, to resolve this matter urgently and in a way that will command maximum public support, it would be desirable for the House to have an opportunity to consider any recommendations from the Committee as early as possible.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (j) to motion 1, in paragraph (1), leave out from 'allowances' to end of the motion and add
	'; believes that in order to command maximum public support for change the House should defer its conclusions until after the Committee has reported; and further believes it would be desirable for the House to have an opportunity to consider any recommendations from the Committee as early as possible.'.
	Amendment (l) to motion 1, at end of paragraph (3)(a) insert
	'but not permit a per diem allowance.'.
	Amendment (d) to motion 1, leave out paragraph (3)(c).
	Motion 2 Members' Allowances (Greater London)
	That, with effect from 1 April 2010, no distinction shall be made for the purposes of the rules governing Members' allowances between an hon. Member who represents an inner-London constituency and an hon. Member who represents any other constituency the whole of which falls within 20 miles of the Palace of Westminster.
	Motion 3 Registration of Members' Financial Interests
	(1) That, for the purpose of complying with the Resolution of the House of 22 May 1974 relating to Registration of Members' Financial Interests, in respect of interests falling within Category 1 (Directorships), Category 2 (Remunerated employment, office, profession, etc) or Category 3 (Clients), hon. Members shall furnish the Registrar with the following particulars
	(a) the precise amount of each individual payment made in relation to any interest,
	(b) the nature of the work carried out in return for that payment,
	(c) the number of hours worked during the period to which the payment relates, and
	(d) except where disclosure of the information would be contrary to any legal or established professional duty of privacy or confidentiality, the name and address of the person, organisation or company making the payment;
	(2) That such interests shall be registered whether or not their value in any given year exceeds one per cent. of the current Parliamentary salary;
	(3) That the provisions of this Resolution shall apply whether or not the interest in question depends essentially upon, or arises out of, the hon. Member's position as a Member of Parliament; and
	(4) That the provisions of this Resolution shall come into effect on 1 July 2009.
	Amendment (g) to motion 3, leave out paragraph (1)(c).
	Motion 4 Members' staff
	(1) That, in the opinion of this House, staff who work for an hon. Member should be employed by the House, as a personal appointment and managed by the hon. Member; and
	(2) That the House of Commons Commission shall consider this decision and make recommendations for its implementation, including any transitional provisions which may be necessary, by 29 October 2009.
	Amendment (a) to motion 4, leave out paragraph (1).
	Amendment (f) to motion 4, after
	'managed by the hon. Member',
	insert,
	', and should be entitled to join the House of Commons Staff Pension Scheme'.
	Amendment (g) to motion 4, leave out from
	'managed by the hon. Member'
	to end and insert,
	'if the hon. Member concerned requests it.'.
	Amendment (b), leave out 'this decision and', and insert
	'the benefits or otherwise of an arrangement by which staff who work for an hon. Member might be employed by the House, as a personal appointment and managed by the hon. Member, and, if appropriate,'.
	Motion 5 Members' Allowances (Evidence of Expenditure)
	That, in respect of any claim for payment made by an hon. Member after 1 July 2009 in relation to any allowance or expenditure for which documentary evidence is required, such evidence shall be required regardless of the sum concerned.
	Motion 6 Members Estimate Committee (Amendment of the Green Book)
	That Standing Order No. 152D (House of Commons Members Estimate Committee) shall be amended in line 10 by inserting after 'House' the words 'and the Guide to Members' Allowances known as the Green Book'.

Harriet Harman: This is an opportunity for the House to debate matters that all hon. Members care about and know to be important. None of us wants a situation in which someone can be an MP only if they have enough money to afford the costs that inevitably come with a constituency that is far away from London. That is why we all agree that we must have financial recognition of the cost of working in London and in a constituency.
	We all want to be sure that we can do our work effectively on behalf of our constituents, which is why we agree that it is necessary to have a team of staff so that we can do our work. We all recognise that Parliament has legitimacy because each of us is democratically elected, but we also know that the institution of Parliament needs to command public confidence, and it is evident that the public do not have confidence in our allowance system. That lack of confidence undermines not only the institution of the House of Commons, but every one of us Members.
	We made changes in July last year and January this year. I think that those changes did a great deal to put our allowances on a better footing and to make the audit of our claims fully robust. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who worked hard to shape those changes. However, it is clear that the lack of public confidence is such that we need to go further. The Prime Minister has said this, and the leaders of the major Opposition parties have also called for immediate action. Today's debate and the motions before the House offer us an opportunity to take that action.
	The first motion will enable the House to endorse the inquiry that the Committee on Standards in Public Life is conducting at the request of the Prime Minister. It is a major step for the House to endorse a thorough and external review of the structure of our allowance system by an independent body, and we should all be grateful to Sir Chris Kelly and his committee for undertaking it.

Tony Wright: Will my right hon. and learned Friend help us on something at the outset of our debate? If the House takes a view today that turns out to be contrary to the view that emerges from the Kelly committee, which will prevail?

Harriet Harman: I will be able to help my hon. Friend with the answer to that question when I address how I will ask the House to deal with the amendment tabled by members of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Patrick Cormack: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), the right hon. and learned Lady has said to the House that we should endorse the Christopher Kelly inquiry. I entirely agree with that, so why are we to anticipate and pre-empt it? Surely out of courtesy alone we should allow Sir Christopher and his committee to conduct their investigations and make their recommendations, and then vote on them. We are pre-empting the committee today.

Harriet Harman: We are not pre-empting the Kelly inquiry. There are a number of actions that we can take now. If hon. Members will let me get on with my speech, they will hear how I suggest that the House should vote on the motion and the amendments. Hopefully they will then be reassured that there is no question of us wanting to pre-empt the Kelly inquiry, for which the Prime Minister called, and which we hope that the whole House will support. I do think that there are actions that we could take now without having to wait for the Kelly inquiry. That is not about pre-empting it; it is about taking certain actions now.

David Heath: There is one glaring omission from the motions on the Order Paper. It relates to a measure that I think would command support from all parts of the House: the Prime Minister's suggestion that those who have grace and favour accommodation, paid for by the state, should not be able to claim the additional costs allowance. Will the right hon. and learned Lady explain why that is not on the Order Paper? If her intention is that the issue should be dealt with by the ministerial code of conduct, I say to her that that is not sufficient, because it does not allow for complaints from members of the public to be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Harriet Harman: I think that I had better get on with my speech, because I have answers to the questions asked so far further down in my speech. I ask for Members' forbearance, so that I can get on and make my argument.

David Clelland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Harriet Harman: I will give way one more time, but then I must get on.

David Clelland: Before we move off the point about giving guidance to the Kelly committeethat, I take it, is what the first motion doesthere seems to be a contradiction in the first motion. Paragraph (2) recognises that Members of Parliament
	undertake parliamentary duties both in Westminster and their constituency.
	Indeed they also undertake such duties outside Westminster and their constituency, which is not mentioned. The motion goes on to say that
	any new arrangements...ought to...take account of hon. Members' attendance at Westminster.
	Why is that?

Harriet Harman: I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me. I will answer his question as I get on with my speech. The first motion invites the House to express the opinion that new arrangements should take account of attendance at Westminster, be transparent and accountable, and reduce the cost to the public. The amendment in the name of the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), welcomes the inquiry but deletes that opinion, invites the Kelly committee to get on with its work, and asks that we consider the recommendations as soon as they have been made. In the consultation paper that Sir Christopher Kelly recently issued, Review of MPs' ExpensesIssues and Questions, he said that he will indeed consider whether the payment of allowances should be linked to attendance and a flat-rate daily payment. In that consultation paper, the Committee on Standards in Public Life says, on the issue of a flat-rate allowance:
	The Committee will consider this proposal alongside other options for reforming the current system.
	Sir Christopher Kelly also says that he will look at how we ensure best value for the taxpayer. In the light of that, it does not seem necessary for me to divide the House on the amendment, and I am minded to accept it. The important thing is that we endorse the Kelly inquiry, that it presses on with its work, and that we take the further steps in the other resolutions, to which I now turn.

Douglas Hogg: I want to understand what the right hon. and learned Lady just said. The first amendment amendment (j), which is in the name of the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committeein effect postpones consideration of the motions until after the report of Sir Christopher Kelly, and rightly so. Does she accept that if the amendment is carried, the question should not be put on any of the other motions, because all the matters in the other motions are covered by the remit of Sir Christopher Kelly?

Harriet Harman: Let me just clarify to the House: we propose to accept, and not put to the vote, the amendment in the name of the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, because it endorses the Kelly inquiry, and I think that it is important for the House to endorse that inquiry. The three issues raised in the rest of the motion, which is deleted by the Chair of the Select Committee's amendment, are about linking allowances to attendance, transparency and value for money for the public. Christopher Kelly has already said, in his consultation paper, that he will take those issues forward in his inquiry. That being the case, and as the motion was only an opinion, I do not think that it is necessary to put the amendment to the vote. We will accept the amendment. The first motion will therefore be important, because it means the whole House, I hope, endorsing the Kelly inquiry. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg); there are actions that we can and should take now. We have further motions on the Order Paper today, with which I would like to press forward.

Alan Duncan: We seem to be treading rapidly into the realms of complete and utter lunacy. If the right hon. and learned Lady wishes, very sensibly, to accept the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his colleagues on the Standards and Privileges Committeeit seems to be the view of the House that it should be acceptedit will be binding on the House; it will be part of a resolution. In that case, logically, everything else would fall, and we would leave everything to that Committee.

Harriet Harman: As I argue for each of the motions in turn, I intend to explain to the House why I think that it can and should take action on each motion now.

Several hon. Members: rose

Harriet Harman: I ask hon. Members to bear with me and listen to my argument. Of course they can decide

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems that this is

William Cash: A car crash.

Patrick Cormack: not a car crash, but a point for Mr. Speaker. We have just heard that the Leader of the House is to recommend that the House, without a vote, endorse an amendment that says that Sir Christopher Kelly's report should be waited for. She went on to say that the House should, in effect, pre-empt Sir Christopher's decisions in a number of particulars. Surely that is inconsistent, and surely all the other motions are predicated on the amendment that is to be carried.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I do not regard motions 2 to 6 as directly contingent on motion 1, or in direct contradiction to it.  [Interruption.] Order. Let me speak. As a result, motions 2 to 6 can be moved if the Government so wish. The motions are a separate series of propositions on which the House can decide. If the motions are moved, that is what will happen.

Alan Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the clarification in your ruling, it would be open to the House, having agreed to amendment (j), to realise that it could give effect to an equivalent amendment for all the other motions by simply defeating the remaining motions, would it not?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct.

Harriet Harman: Of course there would be

George Young: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: Let me just press on with my argument, if I may. [Hon. Members: Give way.] All right; I give way to the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for giving way, and for agreeing to accept my amendment before I even made my speech on it. However, from what she says, it sounds as though it is a pyrrhic victory, because even if the amendment is to be carried, she invites the House to make conclusions. My Committee could not have been clearer: we wanted the House to defer its conclusions until after Sir Christopher Kelly's committee reported. We tabled exactly the same amendments to all the other motions, so that there could be no doubt whatever about our intentions. I have to say that it sounds somewhat inconsistent to accept the amendment and then plough on as if it had not been accepted.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman's Committee has tabled amendments saying that we should not go ahead now to deal with the question of outer-London Members' eligibility for the additional costs allowanceto take action now on them. [Hon. Members: No!] Look, let me just get on with my argument [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the House speak. She has said that she has accepted an amendment from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Usually, people are pleased when the Government accept an amendment. It seems that there is a displeasure in some quarters, but I have made the ruling and what I have had to say is quite clear. Let the right hon. and learned Lady speak, because she is not the only one who wants to speak today.

Harriet Harman: Other Members will have an opportunity to speak, and all Members will have an opportunity to vote; I just want to have an opportunity to set out why I argue that we should press on with the action that is identified in the other motions.
	The next motion, motion 2, would mean that from April next year there would be no distinction between Members from inner and outer London. All Members representing constituencies within 20 miles of Westminster would be treated as London MPs. The 20-mile limit is drawn from the Green Book. Whatever the Kelly report recommends on the additional costs allowance, I think, and I invite the House to decide now, that the distinction between inner and outer-London Members is no longer sustainable. Whatever the Kelly committee's proposal is to deal with the extra costs of constituencies outside London, and the proposal will then be debated in the House, we ought to decide now that all London MPsinner and outer-London MPsshould be treated the same. In that case

Several hon. Members: rose

Harriet Harman: I shall not give way any more. Members might [ Interruption. ] No. Members will have an opportunity to disagree with my argument in their own speeches, but I ask them at least to give me the opportunity to set out why I think that we should take that action now.
	In that case, I think

Alan Duncan: Will the right hon. and learned Lady allow just one intervention?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has already intervened once.

Alan Duncan: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Ian Taylor: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: I shall give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. and learned Lady giving way to the shadow Leader of the House?

Harriet Harman: Yes.

Alan Duncan: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady, because I know that she is under a lot of pressure from all parts of the House. On the logic of her position, however, the first motion talks about Members' allowances in general, refers to
	any new arrangements relating to Members' allowances,
	and is, therefore, a complete, all-embracing point about allowances in general. So if the reference to allowances in general is referred to Sir Christopher Kelly's committee, surely it is only logical and honest to say that the other motions should be dropped.

Harriet Harman: As I have said, whatever the Kelly report recommends on the additional costs allowance, we should decide now that the distinction between inner and outer-London Members is no longer sustainable. The House will have a chance to vote on that, and, in that case, I think it only fair that our outer-London colleagues know that they will be put on the same footing as us in inner London, so that they have timeuntil April next yearto make changes to their arrangements if they need to. So we should get on and make that decision.
	There is also an issue in respect of the accommodation allowance for those Ministerscurrently the Prime Minister and the Chancellorwho use London grace and favour accommodation.

Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I notice that the hon. Gentlemanplease have a seat while I am standingwanted to intervene and has now gone from seeking an intervention to seeking a point of order. I hope that it is a proper point of order.

Ian Taylor: Mr. Speaker, is it in order that the Leader of the House goes through an explanation without giving way to somebody who is personally affected by the measures? An explanation between us might well clarify the situation.

Mr. Speaker: It is a debate, and the hon. Gentleman can always seek to catch my eye and put his particular case to rebut what the Leader of the House has had to say.

Harriet Harman: I was dealing with the question of grace and favour accommodation. The Prime Minister has already decided that no Minister using grace and favour accommodation in London will be able to claim the accommodation allowance. That will be done by amending the ministerial code and will be effective from 1 July. There are mechanisms for complaints about a breach of the ministerial code, so such complaints would not be on the same track as other complaints about allowances.
	The third motion would, by requiring Members to declare all their earnings from outside employment, enable the Kelly review to make its proposals about outside employment with full knowledge of its extent. I believe that the motion is necessary to assist the Kelly committee. An amendment proposes that there would be no need to register the amount of time a Member spends earning money on outside interests, but I think that, if the public elect a Member, they have a right to know how much time that Member devotes to making money rather than to representing their constituents. So I am not minded to accept the amendment.
	The motion would help Sir Christopher to make decisions about outside interests in the full knowledge of their extent; otherwise, he would be asked to make decisions without fully knowing about outside interests because they would not be fully registered. If the House agrees with the motion, however, everything will be out in the open and he will be able to make recommendations, having been put fully in the picture.
	The fourth motion is about our staff. The reality is that the staff allowance is nothing to do with our salary; it is to pay our staff. Yet because it is accounted for as part of our allowance, the public see it as part of our pay, which it is not.

Several hon. Members: rose

Harriet Harman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn).

Meg Munn: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I am extremely concerned about that issue, because a range of employment legislation refers to the relationship between an employee and an employer. It would be much better if the matter were fully investigated before the House expressed an opinion; otherwise, we may end up saying that a Member's staff should be employed by somebody completely differentwithout our being fully aware of the situation's implication either for those staff or, indeed, for the Member.

Harriet Harman: Many points of detail need to be addressed, and that is why motion 4(2) states:
	That the House of Commons Commission shall consider this decision and make recommendations for its implementation, including any transitional provisions.

Andrew Miller: rose

Gordon Prentice: rose

Clive Efford: rose

Harriet Harman: I shall give way once more, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), and then I must get on with my speech.

Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that, after the inquiry, there will be proper consultation with all staff representatives, and that the results of that consultation will be available to the House before the matter returns here and we make a decision on it?

Harriet Harman: I shall give that assurance, and the Deputy Leader of the House has already begun meetings with the various staff associations and the trade unions.
	Motion 4 would allow the House to express the view that Members' staff should be employed by the House, while ensuring that we would appoint and manage them, and would ask the House of Commons Commission to look into how that could be done. It would help us to move towards a prompt change in the arrangements if the Commission could get to work on the practical issues alongside the Kelly inquiry.
	Motion 5 would provide that, in respect of all claims where documentary evidence is required, there should no longer be a 25 cut off. There would need to be receipts for all claims. I really do think that that is something sensible which we could decide for ourselves now.
	Finally, motion 6 would allow the Members Estimate Committee, which already has the power to amend resolutions of the House, to amend the Green Book. It has been a great concern for us to see the reputation of the House suffer over the issue of our allowances [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is best not to shout the right hon. and learned Lady down, because then what happens is that when the shadow Leader of the House stands up, there is more shouting. I do not want that. This is a debate, and people should be allowed to be heard.

Harriet Harman: We all know that much of the criticism that has been ladled out to everybody has been simply unfair, but we can and should respond with sensible actions. Today, we have the opportunity to make a number of changes and to support the Kelly inquiry. I am sure that the public will understand that the Kelly committee will need some time to deliberate, but they will also expect us to take action now, where we can. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we support the steps necessary to protect the reputation of Parliament and reassure the public.

Several hon. Members: rose

Harriet Harman: I am concluding my comments.
	I hope that we can do as much as possible today by agreement. It would be good if the public could see that we are able to discuss these issues in a way that is calm and measured, and looks to defend the public interest. We all want the reputation of the House to be restored; today is an opportunity to make a start on that. If the House does as we ask, we will have endorsed the Kelly inquiry, sorted out the outer-London allowances, ensured that all claims are backed with receipts, ensured that the public can see all MPs' outside earnings, and taken steps to ensure that it is clear that our staff are employed on parliamentary business. That will all go some way to restoring the public confidence that this House needs and, I believe, deserves. I commend the motions to the House.

Alan Duncan: We are living in very feverish economic and political times. At a moment like this, the House can either look absolutely absurd or lift its level of debate and discussion to something that properly understands what this place should be. The boot that is on one foot at the moment can, in due course, change, and the balance of advantage in this place changes with it. We must therefore appreciate that this Parliament needs to work through those changes and set standards to which everyone will adhere.
	We are a representative democracy. We are elected here to do our public duty, but we are also private individuals. We do not have a presidencywe have a Parliament. Those who say, Look, the Senate can exist with 100 people and the House of Representative with 435, or whatever it is, forget that it takes a billion quid to be elected President. Yet it is from our Parliament that all our Ministers are drawn. We are the pool of talent from which the legislation is made and from which the Executive are formed. That is how we are, and it means that this place has to work to accommodate both those needs.
	In the midst of all thisinevitably, as in all politicsis the conflict between personal interest and public duty. A lot of people misunderstand what interest isit is not just being interested in something but being linked to it and perhaps able to influence it. In this House, the real influence, or interest, of the Back Bencher is very limited. The Back Bencher has power only if he or she acts collectively. It needs to get to the point where either the ayes have it or the noes have it. But Ministers, who take executive decisions, can change things with a stroke of their own individual pen, and therefore need different rules.
	We do need rules for how we behave and for how we handle money. In my view, the rules must be fair, they must be lasting, and they should not in any way be based on partial political advantage. We have a conflict, perhaps, between not being corrupt and not turning this place into somewhere that is so over-sanitised that we become merely robotic fodder. This House recently set out a whole new book of rules. On page 5, it says that they are rules that
	should be designed to last for the lifetime of a Parliament and not changed midterm.
	They only came into effect on 1 April, and now it is the thirtieth.
	In the past, we have had problems with how our remunerationour package of rewardis shaped. On the last occasion when there was this sort of fever, the then Prime Minister, now Sir John Major, set up the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Lord Nolan, to whom I spoke oftenhe is about 6 ft 6 in, so it was quite hard workset out some original principles designed to govern us for a very long time. Frankly, some of those principles have gone wrong, particularly at a local level where local and parish councillors feel that they can hardly express an opinion without having to withdraw it; that has become absurd and needs review. However, the principles set out to govern us still endure, and we should not forget what they were.
	There is another problem with our salaries and allowances. In the past, because no one quite dared make the stand that was perhaps necessary to protect this House as we would all wish, it was decided instead to disguise them. I mean no embarrassment to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) by quoting what he said in the  Evening Standard today; in fact, a lot of people will agree, even if they do not say it so baldly. He said that the Prime Ministerfrankly, I think that this could apply to all Prime Ministers
	refused to accept any of the pay awards made by the independent salary review bodies...For short-term headlines as the man who kept down the pay of politicians, he stored up deep resentments as MPs turned to the allowance system to live decently in both constituency and London.

Lembit �pik: rose

Alan Duncan: I will give way, but I will not do so very often because so many Members want to speak.

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the course of his reasoned and interesting speech. In line with his call to courage, has he considered the case for doing away with the expenses system altogetherbar travel, which has to exist as an expenseand allowing an independent salary review board to consider what salary would be reasonable for us if those other expenses were abandoned? I accept that there are people in the Chamber who do not agree with that, but I am asking whether he has considered it, and the Kelly review should be encouraged to do so too.

Alan Duncan: Let us be honest: many models could be advocated, one of which is completely to do away with the second home allowance and pensions, increase MPs' salaries, and let us sort it out for ourselves. However, anyone who was brave enough to propose such an increase in salaries at the moment would be likely to walk into a firing squad.

John Bercow: What my hon. Friend quoted from the comments of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) in the  Evening  Standard is doubtless true, but I hope that, in a public-spirited and cross-party way, he will be willing to concede that what is said of the Prime Minister's attitude has also been true of previous Prime Ministers, and it is also truethis is absolutely criticalof current party leaders. As long as these matters are driven by people who have inherited or earned wealth, or much higher salaries than those of Back Benchers, it will be difficult to make progress other than by an independent review.

Barry Sheerman: rose

Alan Duncan: Hold onI have to answer my hon. Friend first.
	I think that if my hon. Friend studies the record, he will see that I attributed the same difficulty to former Prime Ministers.

Barry Sheerman: I have been in the House for somewhat longer than the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the problem has been the cowardice of successive Prime Ministers in failing to take the recommendation of an independent body, face it up with the public and in this place, and give the award that was recommended? Unless an independent body makes the judgment and we accept it without any qualification, we will never free ourselves from this tawdry debate.

Alan Duncan: That is the crux of the whole argument about whether we should determine our own remuneration and allowances or contract it out. Crucially, in deciding one way or the other, we should not have one foot in and one foot out and be for ever chopping and changing by contracting it out and then calling it back in again. That, I think, is the crux of the argument that might emerge today.
	I shall canter on, if I may, in order not to delay the House too much. The honest truth is that scrutiny of our expenses has intensified, because that is the way of the world, but the model that is being scrutinised was designed for salary rather than for genuine allowances. That is unacceptable in the modern age. We have to set higher standards, but we have to do so honestly and openly.

Alan Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: No. Oh, it is the right hon. Gentlemanof course I will. I beg his pardon.

Alan Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for that kind recognition. I hope that he will not use quite the language that he just has, because it implies that a great many hon. Members claimed allowances not because they were justified for costs that they were incurring but in order to augment their income. I am sure that I speak for a great many Members who have honestly and always claimed only those amounts that were necessary to reimburse the costs that they have incurred in carrying out their duties.

Alan Duncan: I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I am grateful to him for correcting me. I hope that what he has said will be understood not just by the House but by those who observe our proceedings.
	We should appreciate that as of 1 April there is a much stricter regime for this House, basically requiring all receipts. We are also introducing a regime of audit and assurance. I chair the Members Estimate Audit Committee, and we are making very significant progress and ensuring that all the standards that we set are akin to those of any public body or the most strictly regulated plc. That is what we should strive for.

David Winnick: In the 34 years that I have been here, never once has it been suggested to me, by the Whips or by anybody else, that expenses or allowancescall them what we willshould be part of my salary. If anyone had suggested that, I would have told them where to get off. When I sign a form each month for allowances, I do so on the basis of money that has been spent. Otherwise, I would be a thief and totally dishonest.

Alan Duncan: I will not go into all the details, but looking back over the years, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at the start, the second home allowance was often just paid once a month without receipts, which is an unacceptable system in the modern age.
	It is quite clear that as time has gone on, we have moved gradually, intermittently and sometimes contradictorily between setting our own terms and giving the responsibility to another body. I believe that it is right that we should not set our own terms and conditions. Indeed, the Prime Minister believed only a few weeks ago that the current issues should be referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. So it was that he wrote to the chairman of that committee on 30 March. It is now only a month later30 Apriland things seem dramatically to have changed.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and members of his Committee have tabled an amendment suggesting that everything should be referred to the committee chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, and the Leader of the House has now said that she is prepared to accept that. I shall come to the procedural consequences of that in a moment, but that committee, the successor to the Nolan committee, is empowered to look into all these things. So, in quantum rather than in principle, is the Senior Salaries Review Body, which is examining our pay and pensions. Those bodies are best equipped to come up with a conclusion and a clear overall picture.
	I introduce a small element of caution. All hon. Members will have received notification from that committee about the basis on which it intends to conduct the review. It states at the beginning that it has to do what the public want. To be fair, that is part of a longer sentence that says more besides, but the whole point of that committee is that it should set itself above the fever and anger of the day-to-day world and embrace the highest possible principles that should govern our proceedings. It is the Committee on Standards in Public Life, not the committee for public opinion on public life.
	We have seen a lot of political goings-on over the past few days, and I do not want to score political points and make[Hon. Members: But] No, there is no but. I am going to examine the motions. Motion 1 is an all-embracing statement of principle that talks about allowances in general. Based on his amendment, my right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, says that we should defer our conclusions, and he means that in the plural and overall. Having heard your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I can accept that our procedures allow for votes on the other motions that will follow, but let us be honestif that amendment is accepted and we then go on to vote on all the other motions, the House will look absolutely absurd.
	I note that there is nothing about grace and favour homes, and the motion on London is clear and the debate familiar. On financial interests, I have referred to what I think should be the overall governing principles, but the mood of the day is the mood of the day. But let us admit ittimesheets are absurd. The Leader of the House lives a very busy life. She is also the deputy leader of the party, chairman of the Labour party, the Minister for Women and Equality, the Lord Privy Seal and the Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham. I would love to see her timesheets. The notion that in life and in the modern world of work one can keep timesheetslet us face it, they are designed for one thing only, which is the subsequent embarrassment of those who have to publish themwill not do much good for us or anybody. If someone is seen to earn a lot of money from a company and work a few hours, everyone will be phoning up the company and asking, Why do you employ this person at such a rate? If anyone is getting a little bit of money for a large number of hours, they will be asking, Why isn't that person a full-time MP, and why are they earning tuppence?

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not? I want to race on and let others speak.
	A much bigger issue is staff. I am very perturbed by what I sense to be the concern of all our staff about what the proposal would mean. It is not entirely logical that everything that is thought to be wrong with who employs whom, and what their employment contract is, would automatically be solved by creating a massive human resources and personnel department in the House of Commons. The Leader of the House says in one motion that we have to cut the cost of politics. I have seen, and the House will know, how much it costs to publish 1 million redacted receipts. If on 1 July, or whenever, 3,000 contracts suddenly have to be transferred to the House of Commons, the resource implications will be absolutely massive. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is assiduous in ensuring that he knows what is going on in all the highways and byways of the parliamentary estate, and with its people and premises and so on. He went to a meeting with staff yesterday, and I think that he would readily admit that the tone surrounding what they thought might be in prospect was not a happy one.

Angela Browning: As I am retiring, I have obviously had several telephone conversations with the Department of Resources in the past week. My staff have an expectation of what their status will be and what will happen to them at the end of this Parliament. In talking to the Department of Resources, I found that the fact that it would become the employer of nearly 2,000 people means that its status would be very different from ours. We are small employers of two, three or four people. It will have to take into account a whole range of matters such as equal pay, which will require a large HR department.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend has a lot of experience in employment matters, and that is the basis of the experience that she has brought to the House. It is the sort of experience that this House will need in future if we are going to be any good at what we intend to do.

Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if we defer the question of fair, direct employment of staff and allow the continuation of the fiction that we are passing 130,000 through our own pockets, because we think that it would be bureaucratically inconvenient, the public will feel that we have not taken their concerns seriously?

Alan Duncan: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to base decisions that affect people's lives on what he describes as a fiction, rather than the facts that matter, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with his approach to politics and decisions.
	The crucial amendment on which we will vote at 5 o'clock is (j), which would defer everything until the Committee on Standards in Public Life has reported. I sense that the mood of the House is that it should be accepted. If the Government have said that they accept it, it is more likely than not to go through, unless they change their mind again. We are experiencing the control of everything in the House by the Executive, who are in some difficulty. We simply say that we do not want to score political points, but we want the House of Commons to work in the long term. We also want to ensure that a feverish shambles does not become an even greater shambles. The option in the amendment, which the Government now support, is to defer everything, and not make piecemeal changes. Although those changes were said to be an interim solution, they are not, because interim does not appear in anything before us today. Three hours' debate in the current political climate is no basis on which to make lasting changes.
	I leave as much time as possible for Members to contribute, but I hope that they understand the importance of their vote at 5 o'clock.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak early in the debate and to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of House. I also speak as a member of the House of Commons Commission and of the Members Estimate Committee.
	I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's graceful approach in accepting the amendment. That was sensible, and fitted the tone of the documents, which I have read carefully, that Sir Christopher Kelly issued. It was appropriate for the Prime Minister to write on 23 March to Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life to request an inquiry into Members' allowances. The Members Estimate Committee, assisted by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), conducted a six-month inquiry last year. As has been mentioned, the Senior Salaries Review Body held a review, which lasted a year. The House did not accept its conclusions and recommendations, just as it did not accept ours last year. The point has been madeperhaps more flamboyantly than I would make itthat no Prime Minister since Edward Heath has accepted a recommendation from a Senior Salaries Review Body about Members of Parliament's salaries.
	The question of staff has been raised. Last year, the Members Estimate Committee considered what would happen to our staff if they became House of Commons employees, and its two-volume report includes a large section on that. As the law stands, any member of staff who becomes a member of the staff of the House of Commons also becomes a member of staff of the Commission, and cannot be a political servant or can be only politically neutral. Any change in that procedure would require a new unit and possibly legislation.

John Barrett: Would that mean that, following a general election, it would be the House's responsibility to redeploy those members of staff whose former employers had lost their seats?

Stuart Bell: That is a pertinent point. The Leader of the House said that the House of Commons Commission would examine the matter carefully between now and 29 October. My right hon. and learned Friend was asked whether it would take evidence and representations. I assure hon. Members that, under the chairmanship of the Speaker, the Commission will consider every aspect, take evidence and receive submissions before the matter comes back to the House after 29 October.

Angela Browning: I hope that the House of Commons Commission will also avail itself of a lawyer experienced in employment law. When we heard that the change was originally to be made on 1 July, it showed that the Government clearly had no idea about the legislation that they had created or the rights of employees.

Stuart Bell: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. We have examined proper advice on employment law and we will do that again. However, I assure hon. Members that the most complete analysis and investigation of that serious matter will be undertaken. Members of the Commission, under Mr. Speaker's chairmanship, are well aware that 2,000 members of staff work for Members of Parliament inside and outside the House, and their interests need to be taken into account.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman is obviously experienced in such matters. Is there no way of maintaining the arrangements broadly as they stand, while altering the way in which the money is reported and accounted? The problem is not the way in which we employ our staff, but that the public are misled into believing that the money comes to us, rather than to our staff.

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman's point touches on what the shadow Leader of the House said. There is a perception in the public domain that the salaries of Members of Parliament's secretaries and assistants are part of our income. I was on a TV programme with Andrew Neil, who said to the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), You've spent 133,000 this year. How did you do that? The right hon. Gentleman replied that most of it was spent on salaries. Conveying that message is one of the impossibilities that we are currently experiencing. That is one reason for the Government's proposal. However, when considering our staff, we must be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend's comments are helpful and I believe that the Commission's work will also be helpful. Does he not agree that it seems strange for us to be asked today to express an opinion before the important work has been done?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend makes her point, which is a matter for the Government, not me as a member of the House of Commons Commission. I simply say that, between now and 29 October, staff salaries and their relation to Members of Parliament will be carefully considered.

Anne Main: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously basing his argument on the fact that we cannot convince the public? According to him, they are too dim to understand. However, we remunerate our staff for the job that they do; it is nothing to do with money coming into our pockets. Do we genuinely intend to alter the lives of our staff and all those who work for us simply because of a perception?

Stuart Bell: I always enjoy hearing the hon. Lady, but history gets rewritten quickly. If she reads  Hansard tomorrow, she will realise that I did not say what she claims.

Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend reinforce on behalf of the Commission the assurance that the Leader of the House gave that, as part of the process, the Commission will engage with and take evidence from representatives of our staff in their various guises and ensure that that evidence is reported properly to the House before any decisions are made?

Stuart Bell: I assure my hon. Friend that no decisions will be made without a full review by the House of every aspect of the evidence.

Several hon. Members: rose

Stuart Bell: I have only 10 minutes to spend on the subject and I should like to make some progress.
	The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the Green Book and that it is only a month old. The Green Book is a book of principles and governance and it carefully states what we are doing about governance and audit. The hon. Gentleman knows that we held a meeting yesterday about audit, which is a significant part of our allowances and how they are supervised. The Members Estimate Audit Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), comprises hon. Members. Three outside independent members also advise the House accounting officer. We also have the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office, with overall audit of the accounts and processes. There will soon be an operational assurance unit, managed separately from the section in the Department of Resources, which will administer payments. The unit's role will be to give advice to Members and to ensure compliance with the rules and the maintenance of standards.

Mohammad Sarwar: Does my hon. Friend accept that hon. Members' staff do a fantastic job on a day-to-day basis, sometimes in difficult circumstances? Does he think it fair that we should be transferring staff to the House without any consultation with them? What assurances and guarantees can he give that their salaries, bonuses and redundancy payments will not suffer?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend makes a point similar to that which the Opposition made earlier about the anxiety among staff, even if we have a general election and there are changes in the membership of the House, about what would happen to them. As I am indicating, at this moment in time, anyone who becomes a member of the House of Commons staff or the House of Commons Commission is politically neutral. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will need to look at that issue, which is also one that we will look at carefully.

Hugh Bayley: On a couple of occasions I have asked the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who answers questions on behalf of the House of Commons Commission in the House, whether it would be possible for our staff to join the pension scheme for House staff. When my hon. Friend is looking into the pros and cons of transferring staff across to the House of Commons, will he look into their pension entitlement, too?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. Not only is there the question of transfer; there is also the question of pensions and pension rights, which is a major matter that we will need to consider.

Alison Seabeck: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and value his experience in this place. However, can he please tell me and the House whether consideration has been given to whether staff contracts, which are quite different from each other in many cases, will all need to be renegotiated under the proposal that our staff cease to be employed by us and become employed by the House authorities instead?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Meg Munn: TUPE.

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) makes another point, from a sedentary position, which I have already made to the authorities. There is such a thing as TUPEthe Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which we passed through this House many years ago. As we can see, the consideration of the anxieties of staff is extremely important.

Judy Mallaber: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the many hon. Members who, like me, supplement their staffing allowance by transfers from, say, the incidental expenses provision or their own resources will still be allowed to do so in future?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the transfer from the incidental expenses provision to salaries, which is also one that we may look at.

James McGovern: On the subject of consultation, when my staff heard about the proposal last week, I had to admit that it was sprung on me. They said, How were you going to consult us? I said, Well, I don't know, because I don't know enough about it. I still do not know at what stage my staff will be consulted or whether it will be me or someone else who consults them. On the employer-employee relationship, according to the proposal, I will still be allowed to hire and fire. If I am still allowed to hire and fire and the employee goes to a tribunal, will it be me or the House who will respond?

Stuart Bell: I have been talked out on the Floor of the House. This is a debate of the utmost importanceconstitutionally, for this Chamber and for Members of Parliament. We belong to the future, as well as the past. We must remember that point, because it is extremely importanta sovereign people and a sovereign Parliament.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) is absolutely right: this is a debate of great constitutional and practical importance. Unfortunately, it more resembles a Whitehall farce, given the way that the House has proceeded on the matter over the yearsconstantly debating it and giving more hostages to fortune, but never reaching resolutions that satisfactorily address some of the basic issues or give confidence to the public that the system meets the need.
	Need is an important part of this debate. We should not walk away from the fact that Members of Parliament need expenses in order to do their jobs on behalf of their constituents. We need to make that absolutely and abundantly clear. Paying staff, renting offices and providing accommodation for Members of Parliament whose constituencies are a long way from London is part of the responsibility of the House, in order to enable Members to do their jobs properly.
	Butand it is a big butthere are criteria that should apply to that provision of finance. It should be based on genuine need and provide what is necessary for right hon. and hon. Members to do their jobs as Members of Parliament, but not a penny more and not a penny less. That is a significant point. That provision needs a system that is transparent, so that the public can see that the money is being used effectively and properly. It also needs accountability and external audit that goes beyond what is available in the House, so that there is a guarantee that matters are being properly dealt with.
	We cannot get away from the urgency of dealing with the issue. As I have said, it is a matter on which we have had endless debates. The public are sick and tired of us sitting in this Chamber and talking about our allowances, rather than the big problems that face this country. They simply do not understand why, if we purport to run the country, we cannot run our own affairs properly.

Clive Efford: I absolutely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Does he therefore agree we should not have to wait to be told to do what is right? Getting rid of the outer-London allowance for MPs is the right thing to do. Publishing details of second incomes that may influence hon. Members' activities in this House or how they vote is also the right thing to do in the interests of openness and scrutiny of this House. We do not need anyone to tell us how to do that; we should get on and do it now. Does he agree?

David Heath: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) has made it clear in what he has recently published that there ought to be matters we can agree as a matter of urgencymatters that are self-evident; matters that are clear abuses of the present system that we can remove. That is why we need the twin-track approach, dealing both with the more complex issues, about which it is quite proper to ask for Sir Christopher Kelly's and his committee's advice, and with those matters which I would have hopedalthough I am almost doomed to disappointment in this respectthe House could see are matters that are in our hands and which we can deal with urgently today.
	That is why, although the Leader of the House has accepted the amendment standing in the name of the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I do not take the view that we should not proceed with the other motions. We have opinions on them; nevertheless, they are matters that we can quite properly discuss in the House today.

John Barrett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath: I will, but I will try not to take every intervention; otherwise I will still be speaking in 40 minutes.

John Barrett: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the worst abuses has not been covered today, and that is the use of grace and favour homes? Expenses are there to cover additional costs. There are no additional costs for those living in Downing street and they should not be claiming for constituency homes.

David Heath: My hon. Friend knows that I tabled an amendment to that effect, because I thought it was a glaring omission in today's proposal. However, that amendment has not been selected, so we cannot debate it. The Leader of the House says that her solutionthe Prime Minister's solutionis to deal with the issue through the ministerial code of conduct. That is not sufficient. There should be a rule that governs the right to those allowances. The reason I say that is that the issue should be a matter about which members of the public can make complaints and which could be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and, if necessary, brought before the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	Under the Government's present proposal, it would simply be a matter for the Prime Minister. Keeping everything within the bunker at No. 10 would not be satisfactory under the rules of the House, and I therefore ask the Leader of the House to think again. If she will not do so, I will certainly make such a proposal to Sir Christopher Kelly's committee in due course.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman says that he sees merit in taking action on some of these issues now, notably the less complicated ones. I agree with him, and that is a view shared by a number of Members in all parties. Does he recall that, as recently as 1 April, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that agreement on action on a number of these issues was needed now, and that this matter needed to be sorted out?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am a little disappointed to sense that these matters could be left in their entirety to the committee. I regret what I take to be the current view of the Conservative Front-Bench team, because there was a sense of urgency a few weeks ago. That was clear from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam said at the time. He put forward proposalsthey might not command the support of every Member, but they have mineto reduce the additional costs allowance to cover only basic accommodation costs such as rent, council tax and utility bills, and nothing else. There would be none of this John Lewis list or any other incidentals. That system would be clearly understood by the public, and we could act quickly to adopt it. I understand that other Members have different views, however. I also understand that the Leader of the Opposition put forward proposals of his own. They were not entirely irreconcilable with our own, and there was a suspicion that we might have reached an agreement. I shall come back to the provenance of the arrangements in a moment, because the subject is instructive about how the Government do business.
	What are the concerns that the public have been expressing very loudly in recent weeks? If any Member has not heard them, they cannot have talked to many of their constituents recently, because these are real concerns. People are talking about inappropriate purchases being made at the taxpayer's expense. Whether such purchases are typical, common or fair is neither here nor therethat is what people are concerned about. They are also concerned about the abuse of definition in relation to our identifying our principal place of residence, and about the fact that, for some hon. Members, it seems appropriate to change that definition every now and then, according to the potential income involved. That gives rise to a great deal of concern. Concern is also being expressed about unnecessary accommodation, and the possibility that people are claiming for accommodation that they do not need because they have alternative arrangements of one kind or another.
	The public cannot understand why we cannot deal with these issues. Frankly, I cannot understand why we cannot deal with them even under the present system, because it is clearly stated on the forms we sign every time we submit a claim that the costs have been occasioned by parliamentary duties, although that definition seems to be remarkably wide in some cases. Nevertheless, that is the question that the public are asking.

Dari Taylor: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. Every single one of us wants our expenditure to be seen to be accountable, clear and absolutely necessary. I have had incredible letters from some of my constituents about the way I am apparently spending public money. I have written back, faithfully and factually, yet those same people still write letters of abuse. Even if we state our case accurately here today, we are still not going to get away with it. There will still be a sense that we are overpaid and underworked; that is common to many people's responses.

David Heath: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is perhaps a counsel of perfection to say that we will ever get away from that entirely. Every time we see a clear abuse of the system in the pages of a newspaper, it affects not only the person who has been named but every single Member of the House. Every Member of the House is considered to be a crook. That is unacceptable, and it is something that we have to deal with as a matter of urgency.
	Given the public concern, it was nothing short of an act of genius for the Prime Minister to come up with a solution that absolutely failed to meet those concerns. The process has been quite extraordinary. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam put forward his proposals and, whether people agreed with them or not, they were real proposals that addressed the issues and would have made a real difference to the way the House is perceived. The Leader of the Opposition also put forward proper proposals. They were not identical to ours, but they addressed the same issues and tried to find a way forward. At that time, we had nothing at all from the Prime Minister.
	The last time we debated this matter, the Prime Minister did nothing whatever to get the proposals from the House of Commons Commission through; he did not even bother to turn up. He showed no sense of leadership. This time, he waited until the very last moment, then reluctantly agreed, when pushed several times by my right hon. Friend and by the Leader of the Opposition, that it would be a good idea to have a meeting of the three leaders to see whether there was a possibility of consensus. Yet before that meeting, which he did nothing to arrange, had even happened, he came up with a set of proposals that had apparently been written on the back of a fag packet. He did not appear to have discussed them with members of his own parliamentary party. He put them out to the press before he even had the agreement of the Cabinet, which emerged to find them already in the public domain.
	As an afterthought, the Prime Minister rang round the leaders of the other parties to try to arrange a meeting that very evening, because he thought it would be a good idea to get their imprimatur for his proposals. At that meeting, he was completely belligerent and refused to accept any amendment to his perfect proposals. And he wonders why there is no consensus! Then, last week, he made his announcement to the public in a YouTube appearance that had all the awfulness of a David Brent performance. It was quite astonishingand this was the Prime Minister addressing an issue that affects the House in an extremely important way.
	The Prime Minister proposed an attendance allowance, but would it address the question of transparency? No. It would provide cash in hand with no accountability. Would it be related to real costs? No, because it would be given to every single Member of Parliament, irrespective of their needs or arrangements. Would it even be workable? No, it could not have worked within the present arrangements. The Prime Minister failed to understand that, in proposing a system that already exists for the European Parliamentdoesn't it work wonderfully there!he was proposing that the gravy train of Europe should come to Westminster. Incidentally, that also happens at the other end of the corridor. We hear apocryphal stories of noble Members leaving the Rolls-Royce running outside while they nip in to sign in, before going home having claimed their allowance for the day. Is that the system we want? No. That is why it had to be rejected. Eventually the message even got through to the bunker, and it was not put on the Order Paper today. There is, however, a vestigial reference to it in motion 1I will return to that in a momentbecause the Prime Minister can never be completely gainsaid. He must have his way, so if he cannot have it through a vote in the House, he must find an alternative.
	Let me go through the matters for consideration. The grace and favour issues are not there, and I have explained why that is wholly unacceptable and should be remedied. I hope that the House can agree to some motionsour motion 6, which is a technical motion, and motion 5 on evidence of expenditure, which adds to transparency and accountability.
	Motion 3 deals with the registration of interests. I know that that matter is a bit difficult, but it is a basic principle. I have thought about the questions that it has been suggested would arise. Whether people are being paid far too much for too little in their outside employment or are spending too long at their outside employment are legitimate questions to ask Members of the House. If they are not full-time Members of the House, what are they doing with their time? How does their loyalty to their constituents square with their loyalty to their shareholders or employers?

Douglas Hogg: I take that point, and as the House knows, I practise as a barrister and am sometimes in court. I always declare that fact, my constituents know it, and it is in the register. What possible objection is there to that?

David Heath: There is no objection, but it is a matter of transparency[Hon. Members: Yes, there is.] There is no objection within the rules of the House as presently constituted. However, our constituents are entitled to know how we apportion our time and the extent to which we are prepared to provide our time for their benefit rather than for our own. That is the question.

Barry Sheerman: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and when he started I thought that I would be on his side. However, he is making me angry, because he has said not one good thing about the workthe hard workof parliamentarians on both sides of the House, in Committee and in constituencies. I share the criticisms, but, for goodness' sake, cannot someone on the Opposition Benches get the balance right rather than picking up every negative comment, and say something good about the Houseabout the all-party aspects, the hard-working, good legislators, and the work in Select Committees? Come on, please say something good about our colleagues.

David Heath: Clearly the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said. If he is not prepared to listen, I find it difficult to answer him.
	Motion 2 deals with Greater London; surely we can go ahead with this necessary reform. I do not claim exclusive credit for my party colleagues, but I am pleased that not a single Liberal Democrat Member who serves a Greater London constituency claims the allowance. Those Liberal Democrat Members can commute perfectly happily within London, and it is not unreasonable to expect other Members to do so. I notice that the starting date in the motion has been changed by the Leader of the House, to give a little more leeway. We do not need to wait for a transparently appropriate measure to be introduced. The measure is already in place for central London, and it is an anomaly that it did not extend to the greater metropolis.

Ian Taylor: The Kelly committee may come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined, but the matter is being imposed in isolation. Those Members, including me, as I fully declare, who have never been in London, and whose constituencies are in Surreythe old border of my constituency went down to Guildfordhave suddenly been lumped in, without any consultation about the impact on us. I have served for 22 years, and I speak on behalf of all the other Members on a cross-party basis. The matter should not be imposed without full consideration.

David Heath: The number of parameters to consider is not enormous, and I notice that the Leader of the Opposition accepted the proposition at an early stage. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) will disagree and vote against it, but the proposition is properly put forward.
	Motion 4 is very significant, and many Members have made interventions on the matter. There are arguments for putting members of staff directly on the payroll of the House of Commons, but there are many imponderables, and many serious questions need to be asked about the process. SadlyI will upset the Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee againsome Members do not behave as we would wish in their employment of their staff. There are some mill owner MPs who exploit their staff, who might be extremely grateful for the protection of the House. Equally, however, there are issues about transfer of staff, about what happens at the dissolution of a Parliament, and about pensions. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) is keen on a move to the House of Commons pension scheme, and I understand that entirely, but a huge cost is involved in that, and the House must be aware of that costI think that it would double the House of Commons pension bill. Given that we are talking about savings in this context, we really ought to be aware of that before we agree to his approach, and issues relating to the political restrictions that might apply would need to be addressed before we could make progress.

Hugh Bayley: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that it is fair, just and sustainable that the staff of the House, who provide a very good service to us, are in a public sector final salary pension scheme with a notional contribution by the employer of about 25 per cent. of earnings, whereas our staff are entitled to join only a stakeholder scheme, which provides considerably poorer benefits and whereby they get only 10 per cent. of their salary paid in by the employer?

David Heath: Serious questions need to be asked about that and about the whole of the public sector's pension schemes. The hon. Gentleman knows that Liberal Democrats have very serious concerns about the sustainability of public sector pensions as a whole, including those of Members and servants of this House. All I am saying is that one cannot sign a blank cheque for a very large sum without understanding the consequences. May I say to Labour Members who are very concerned about this matter that that is why I have tabled two amendments to motion 4amendments (a) and (b)at which I invite them to look carefully?
	The consequence of those two amendments would not be to remove the progress being made on this by the House of Commons Commission, which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough mentioned; it would be to ask the Commission to examine the benefits and disbenefits before it moves to implementation, so that this House does not agree to something and instruct the Commission to go ahead with it. Instead, the Commission would examine all the consequences of it, report back to the House and, on that basis, make recommendations. In the first instance, I ask the Leader of the House to accept this sensible pair of amendments, but if she does not do so, I ask hon. Members to support them, because they are a sensible precaution to take, in order to avoid yet another car crash on this matter.
	That leaves me with motion 1 to discuss. We have heard what the right hon. and learned Lady has to say, and I hope that that will not remove any of the urgency that all of us identify as necessary on this. The one great benefit of accepting the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire is that it would remove this vestigial inclusion of the requirement to take account of hon. Members' attendance at Westminster. I was going to have to ask a lot of questions about that, because if it simply meant that if a Member never attended Westminster they would not get accommodation, that would be exactly fair. If it was a per diem attendance allowance by the back door, which I suspect it was intended to be, I would be wholly against it, for all the reasons that I have indicated. It is not good enough for the Leader of the House to say that it makes no difference now, because it is already in the paper produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life; it is there as one issue to be looked at among many. In the form in which it was presented to us in motion 1 the provision was an instruction to the Committee, which is why it was unacceptable. If we accept the amendment, that becomes redundant and we look forward to the proposals.
	I hope that we can make some progress today, because we need to do so. However, I fear that the process to date has been so farcical and absurd that it will instil little more confidence in the eyes of the public until we have the report of Sir Christopher Kelly's committee, until it does the job that we have asked it to do and until we agree the recommendations, so that we actually have a proper externally audited arrangement that bears scrutiny. At the moment, we do not have such an arrangement.

David Winnick: It should be clearly understood that the reputation of the House has been much damaged by the controversy about second homes. We can debate today whether we should go to Kelly or otherwise but, as has been said, there is a strong feeling among the public that we are on the make, that what we claim is somewhat dishonest, that it is all part of our salary and so on. It would be wrong of us not to recognise that that feeling has grown in recent times.
	We did not do ourselves any favour when some decided to promote a private Member's Bill that would have exempted the House of Commons from the freedom of information legislation. What sense did that make? The Labour Government should be much praised for introducing the Freedom of Information Act 2000the previous Government absolutely refused to introduce such legislationbut a few years later we tried to claim that it should apply to all public bodies, but not to ourselves. No matter what excuses were made or promises were given that we would still disclose how much we claimed, the general feeling was that we had something to hide. It is sometimes forgotten that that private Member's Bill was passed by this Housethanks to the Whips on both sidesbut it fell in the Lords, because no one was willing to pick it up. The Lords did us a great favour on that occasion.
	It is right that non-London Members should be able to claim for what is described as a second home. Indeed, it would be wrong if we could not claim. In case anyone thinks that I am taking a holier than thou attitude, I should say that I claim for rented accommodationthe rent, the council tax and upkeep. Obviously, not a penny goes into my pocket, but neither am I out of pocket. That is perfectly legitimate. Some hon. Members claim that some people will never understand how such an arrangement can be justified, and that may be so, but fair-minded people would do so. The reason why fair-minded people are not in favour of the present arrangements is that they believe that most of us are being dishonest and that what we claim is not what we have actually spent. There have been one or two cases publicised that, to many people, do not seem to make much sense or have much logic, and they have undermined the position on second homes.
	The legend has grown up that because of inadequate salariesI do not know whether anyone will argue today that our salaries are inadequate, and I doubt whether many members of the public would take that viewthe allowances were introduced and we were tipped off, presumably by the Whips, that we could use that money for our own purposes. I do not know who suggested that in the first place, but in all the years that I have been here no one has said to me that we should claim money and put it into our own pockets. I do not know why that legend has grown up. I work on the assumption that the large majority of hon. Members, in the past as well as now, are honest people and that when they make a claim to the Fees Office each month, they do so on the basis of the money that they have spent. We are not crooks or dishonest, and the few cases that have come to light in no way contradict that. The allowances have never been a substitute for our salaries.
	I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House that we should accept the amendment from the Standards and Privileges Committee. There is a lot to be said, especially as far as motion 1 is concerned, for the matter being considered by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I hope that it will be able to make recommendations in the very near future. I also hope that we will accept its recommendations, because there is little sense sending the issue to that committee and then rejecting its findings.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) echoed my concern about what is called the Westminster allowance. It is true, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said, that that will be considered by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, but I hope that it does not recommend it. It is nonsenseabsolute nonsense. What would the public say about our being paid for coming in to do our job? That is what it amounts to, and I see no reason or justification for its ever being proposed in the first place.
	What would happen when we were doing our parliamentary duties outside Westminsterfor example, with Select Committees that went outside Westminster or with the Council of Europe and so on? Just imagine the number of exceptions that we will have to make. There would be a whole list of them, from A to Z. What about those Members who were genuinely ill? Would they be paid? What about those on maternity or paternity leave? What would happen with the attendance allowance then? As I have said, the proposal is complete nonsense and the sooner we chuck the whole idea the better.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making all the points that I could have made. There was one exception in the proposal, of course. Ministers did not have to attend Westminster. They only had to think a ministerial thought in the day and they could collect the allowance.

David Winnick: That is a good point.
	I started off by talking about the public concern and the unease that is felt. Our responsibility is to try to rectify the situation as quickly as possible and to convince the publicor at least those who are willing to be convinced, as I believe that most will bethat our system is perfectly in order and that we should claim allowances.
	It is interesting to note a point that was mentioned to me by my secretary after she had spoken to a close friend of hers who keeps in touch with events and so on. Her friend was surprised to find out that the bulk of the allowances goes on staff costs. The general feeling has grown up that all this money is used for second homes and so on, when we know that the large majority of the money that we claim is for staff costs. Surely that is perfectly justified. It would be odd if we had to pay our secretaries and researchersnot that I have a research assistantout of our own pockets. It is all clear, and it is all perfectly right, proper and legitimate, but we must persuade the public of that. At this moment, the public are not so persuaded. The sooner they are and the sooner we can put our house in order, the better it will be.

Patrick Cormack: When I first came to this House in 1970 I felt, and I still feel, that representing a part of the United Kingdom in the Parliament of the United Kingdom is as high an aspiration as any man or woman can have. No one should be prevented from standing for election to Parliament because he or she is either too poor or too rich. It is therefore clearly important that we should have allowanceswe did not have them at all in those daysthat enable Members to have a home either in the constituency or in London, depending on where their main residence is. I do not want to enter in detail into the argument over London Members, save to say that I do not believe that it is the duty of this House to pass resolutions that retrospectively oblige colleagues to cancel contractual obligations. It is very important that we should recognise that.
	That is why I believe very strongly that we ought to accept the spirit of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I believe that it addresses all the issues properly. We have appointed Sir Christopher Kelly and his committee to look into all these matters and they should not feel constrained or trammelled in any way. It is important to recognise that the matters that have been referred to Sir Christopher Kelly include the whole business of outside earnings as well as everything else. I do not know, any more than any other colleague in any part of this House knows, what Sir Christopher Kelly and his committee will recommend. I hope that when the recommendations are made, we will be able speedily to accept them even if some of them are somewhat uncomfortable for us, as they may well be. What we should not be doing this afternoon is putting the committee under any constraints by passing any of the other resolutions. We are dealing with a very short period of timeonly a few monthsand we want to get this matter right.

Gordon Prentice: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far, but does he agree that we should accept all the recommendations brought forward by the Kelly committee without amendment? If we amend them, we will once again be determining the parameters of our pay and conditions.

Patrick Cormack: I very much hope that we will be able to accept all those recommendations, but we are a sovereign House and will have to debate them. I hope that they will be sensible, constructive and prudent, and that we will be able to accept them. The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me, but I said earlier that some of the recommendations could be uncomfortablefor me, for him or for othersbut that we should wait for them. When we receive them, they should speedily be brought before the House, and I hope that they can be implemented as quickly as possible.
	I want to address two issues in particular, the first of which concerns our staff. The recommendation on the Order Paper that all our staff should be centrally employed has aroused very real concern in all parts of the House. It is an idea whose full consequences have not been thoroughly thought through. The relationship between Members of Parliament and those who work for them is extremely important. It is right that Labour Members should be able to employ people who to some degree share their political views and prejudices, and the same is true for Conservative Members. It would be very difficult for a member of the Labour party to employ someone who was a card-carrying Conservative, and the reverse would be equally difficult. It is very important that Members of Parliament are able to select who works for them. I last advertised for a member of staff about 18 months ago, and I received something like 100 applications.

John Bercow: Well, you would, understandably.

Patrick Cormack: Yes, and I saw a large number of people and appointed someone. It is very important that nothing should get in the way of that process. Although my hon. Friend is enjoying his own joke

Barry Sheerman: It was a very good joke.

Patrick Cormack: It was a very good joke, of course, as all his jokes are. However, I hope that he would accept that all hon. Members should have that untrammelled right to appoint their staff. I do not want the House of Commons to be turned into a vast employment agency that hires, fires and allocates staff.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) intervened earlier to ask what would happen to her staff, who are making plans based on the knowledge that she is retiring from the service of the House of Commons. Their loyalty to her may be such that they may not wish to carry on working in the House of Commons for another Member of Parliament.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend is in exactly the same position, and I shall give way to her briefly.

Ann Widdecombe: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as I was going to make exactly that point. I am retiring at the next election, and all the members of my staff have indicated to me that they wish to stay with me during the wind-up period and then leave the House. It would be very unfair to them to force them to transfer at the last minute to a different set of conditions, and that is why we need to get the transitional arrangements sorted out.

Patrick Cormack: I completely agree. I have tabled an amendment, which Mr. Speaker has selected, that at the very least would allow staff to choose whether they should be individually or centrally employed. We shall see whether we vote on that later, because I want to hear what people have got to say, but it would be quite wrong to rush through such a change.
	Earlier, I listened to the remarks made on behalf of the House of Commons Commission by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). I used to be a member of the Commission and, despite my regard for him, I was not wholly reassured by what he said. It is important that whatever we decide should not apply until the beginning of the next Parliament because there really ought to be a proper transitional period.
	I now come to an issue that I know is not a comfortable one, but it is one that has to be addressed, and a specific motion is down for it. It concerns outside earnings. Already we have a register and those of us who have any outside earnings register them without any qualms or worries. The register covers what we do, the bands of money that we earn, and for whom we do these things. We are moving down a very slippery slope here because we are moving towards a situation in which, over a generation, this House will become an assembly of full-time, permanent politicians who have no connection to or relationship with the outside world.
	No one could suggest for a minute that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is not an assiduous, full-time Member of Parliament. I know full well that what she does in her constituency is deeply appreciated by her constituents and they are not happy that she is leaving them, but she has found time to write books.

Ann Widdecombe: Very good books.

Patrick Cormack: Very good books, as she rightly says. The fact that she has done that is of no concern to anyone else. It enriches not only her personallywell, I sincerely hope that it doesbut those for whom she works and whom she represents.
	I should like to delete the reference to hours in motion 3. There is a lovely story about the painter Whistler. He was once in a court case accused of knocking off his pictures in an hour or half an hour, and he said, That picture does not represent an hour's work but a lifetime's experience. Often a Member of Parliament is in a position to give advice and may not take very long to give that advice, but it is of great value to those to whom it is given. As long as the register records the interest, that is fine.
	If that advice is given within a context that involves the Member's parliamentary duties, I do not mind extra details being given, but we have already made an exception for the profession of which the Leader of the House is an illustrious adornment. Barristers and solicitors will be allowed to withhold certain information. That is right and proper in view of the confidential relationship between the lawyer and the client, but I do not see why there has to be this intrusiveness in respect of everyone who has outside earnings. I should like to encourage people to do things outside the House.
	I am in my office in the House, as a number of hon. Members present know, never later than 8 in the morning and frequently before half-past 7, as I was this morning, and I very rarely leave much before 10 at night. I give a service in my constituency of which I am quietly proud. If I can find time to do certain other things, to write articles and other things, that is for me and it is my concern. I hope that the House will take a broad-minded view and realise that it will impoverish this place if we merely have people who come in from a political background to be politicians and nothing else and have no contact with those outside in the world that we serve.
	I end where I began. There is no higher calling than representing a constituency in Parliament. When I came here, I regarded it as a vocation and a way of life. Of course we must do all that we can to ensure that the public recognise that and we must not abuse the system, but we must provide the proper tools so that we can adequately do the job.

Paddy Tipping: The Leader of the House made the case for change, and she is right: change is necessary; it is vital, and we need to get on with it. The Prime Minister, all the leaders of the political parties and most Members recognise that, put simply, we cannot go on like this. The mood of the country is detached from the political classes. There is a view abroad that we who represent the people do not understand how they live and the difficulties they face. That is unhealthy; it is not good for democracy; and it is bad for the House. So change is necessary and we need to achieve it quickly. The issue for the House today is simply this: how do we best do it?
	I was delighted that the Leader of the House accepted the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. The way forward is an independent, comprehensive review. We have tried to do that ourselves in the past but have not been successful. Any effort that we take will not have the support of the public outsidewe need that independent element. We need to be aware that the tone out there is corrosive; it undermines our position, and it undermines our self-confidence. I know from talking to colleagues that a number of them are now disillusioned and are thinking of not standing at the next general election. It is bad for the public; it is bad for the House.
	We must pass these matters to Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life and ask them to do a good and thorough job, but there are caveats: we must tell Sir Christopher's committee speed is necessary. That said, he will have to look at the issue comprehensively and carefully and we will have to look carefully at his recommendations. The House is sovereign, but I would be extremely surprised if the House did not take those recommendations, even if they are uncomfortable, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) just said.

Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paddy Tipping: I will turn to the hon. Gentleman directly, and then I will take his point. He is a member of Sir Christopher's committee, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and Baroness Maddox. By definition, they have had to exclude themselves in a way from the inquiry. I say directly to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that he and his colleagues who represent the political parties on the committee are a source of advice and knowledge, because this is a difficult job. Sir Christopher's committee will be worse off if it does not take the knowledge and understanding that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who represent us on that committee can give.

Oliver Heald: I am a member of the committee, but I am not taking part in the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is right that the committee will ask for advice on factual matters from time to time. Does he agree that the committee should take time to hear evidence to find out fully about the role of a Member of Parliament and how it differs in different parts of the country, and that this is not something to be rushed, although it must be done as quickly as possible?

Paddy Tipping: I agree entirely. We need an independent, thoughtful and comprehensive review, but the committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, needs to be aware that there is pressure and a mood outside for change. Change is necessary; it will have to come. I hope that the committee will balance that.
	I am surprised that, having accepted the amendment today, the Governmentmy colleaguesseem to want to plough on with piecemeal change. The House has a straightforward choice today: do we want an independent, comprehensive report that will command widespread appreciation and support outside the House, or do we want to go forward, as we have been doing for some time, doing a bit at a time to try to respond to the changes? That is a wrong way to go forward, and I am surprised that the Government have accepted the amendment from the Standards and Privileges Committee and have decided to plough on. That is a bad decision.
	I think that some of the Government's proposals will be recommended by Sir Christopher's inquiry, and it is interesting that they say that they accept that these are interim proposals. Why do we need to make decisions now when we can consider a comprehensive, thoughtful and independent report that will, we hope, command public confidence in the future?
	Will my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House think again? We have a straight choice today. We all want changeit is vital and urgently neededbut we must consider carefully how to achieve it. Will we go forward in the future comprehensively and in a way that will generate public support, or, as we have done in the past, will we teem and ladle by doing a bit here and a bit there?

Ken Purchase: The idea that the committee can come up with something that commands public support really is hope over experiencewe will not satisfy the public. Let us get on with it and do something sensible. The committee will just waste more time.

Paddy Tipping: I am optimistic for the future and for democracy. Let me say directly to my hon. Friend that we should not be pessimistic. People come into the House to make a difference. They are good people who listen to their community and want to bring about change. We should be proud of that and we should make that point to Sir Christopher's committee.
	I ask my colleagues to support the amendment tabled by the Standards and Privileges Committeeit has been acceptedbut to be sceptical about the need for the further change for which the Government are pressing. We want to be able to rebuild confidence so that we can be proud of the people whom we represent and, more importantly, they can be proud of us. Let us make progress, but progress that is thoughtful, independent and comprehensive.

Tim Boswell: In the course of more than 20 years in the House, I have never felt the need to speak about Members' allowances, and I do so only as I approach retirement. I am conscious, as we all are, that almost anything we say will be misconstrued or interpreted in the opposite way to how we intended to put it. However, I should draw the House's attention to concerns that have been expressed to me by fellow retiring Members and others. I love this place, so it is distressing that many of them are saying to me, I bet you're not sorry you're going, and, given the frenzied tenor of this discussion, I am increasingly starting to agree with them.
	We desperately needthis exactly follows the wise words of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping)the Committee on Standards in Public Life to take a cool and dispassionate look at the situation, and all its complications. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), we then need a pretty strong moral commitment that we will do our best to accept the committee's report, unless it contains something clearly ridiculous. It is important that we look at things objectively not only because a few newspaper headlines have dictated the week's agenda, but because we need independent validation of what is appropriate and right.
	I wish to make two specific points. The first relates to the only interest that I need to declare in this debate, which is characteristic of all my interests except my farming activities in that those interests are often not profitableas is the case for others, many things I do are not for profit. I chair the executive committee of the Parliamentary Resources Unit, which is a pooled resource unit of researchers that is broadly for Conservative Members. In that capacity, I am worried about some of the specific implications of the proposals for staff. The unit has a management structure; we have a director and are appointing a deputy director. We have more than 12 members of staff and therefore need to manage them. In a sense, we Members of Parliament employ staff by proxy. If we are not able to go outside the research grades, we are likely to have a very difficult position. I just record that as an example of the detail.
	That leads to me to say how strongly I agree with the comments made about the relationship with staff. We would all lose if we were to lose that personal link. I do not claim any particular virtue, but I can report that since I joined the House in 1987, I have employed the same constituency secretary, who is London-based, and the same part-time secretary in my constituency. They have worked for me for all that time. To refer to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, they are likely to want to retire, or change their arrangements, when I go. I really do not want that very intimate relationshipperhaps I should say personal relationship, in case that is misinterpreteddisturbed at this stage, overturning all the possibilities of pension and so forth. We need to look at that issue. We need lots of trade union and employment law input, and we need to get the measures right.

Daniel Kawczynski: At the moment, the salaries of our members of staff are put against our own names. Without doubt, many of our constituents think that that money goes straight into our pockets. What do we do to ensure that the salaries of members of staff are not marked against our names?

Tim Boswell: The short answer is that we need to tell the truth about what is happening. Above all, we do not need to distort our arrangements and our relationship with our staff to meet a tabloid headline. Sometimes we have to take a stand.
	I should like to raise one or two more general points that are, in a sense, indicators or markers to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who is seated on my right, is a member of the committee, but even if he is not formally participating in the debate, I hope that he will take notice. The committee should take note of issues of shared expenditure. Lots of us have complicated lives. We do things that are partly political and partly done for our constituents. We do things at home that are part of our office activity, and partly done on our personal account. We benefit from accommodation that is both personal to usit is where we need to stay for the night when we are at Westminster lateand shared by members of our families. That whole area needs sorting out.
	It has been suggested, in some of the more draconian ideas, that Members capital profits on their flats should be clawed back. I dare say that there is a capital profit on the flat that I have occupied since 1989, but I have not worked it out, as it is going down by the moment. However, there is no basis in principle that is clear. It is quite difficult to contemplate any sensible clawback from current or former Members. How, for example, will we run that past the property safeguards under the European convention on human rights? If we are to do that kind of thing, we have to declare what we need to do very clearly. We should start the system in a way that ensures that everyone is clear.
	My third point goes wider than the debate. Nobody has used the words legitimate expectation in this debate, but the Prime Minister's idea of cutting off the allowance year after four months and completely recasting it was absurd. I have never claimed the cost of the kitchen that I bought for my flat from public funds, but had I done so, would it have been all right to do so on 1 May, and all wrong on 1 August? That is not the right way to proceed. That is why I am so anxious that matters should be referred to the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life and properly phased in.
	I shall conclude, because many Members want to speak. We should say that the best defence against abusesthere have been abuses, and, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, there is a need for change; I can see thatis not yet more box-ticking, or even more rigorous accountancy. I accept that there have been failures in that regard, and we need to remove areas of gross difficulty. Those failures are to some extent, however, the function of a system that is too complicated. The best safeguard is the conscience of individual Members in acting responsibly.

Douglas Hogg: Perhaps the best safeguard will be transparency. Now that everybody is obliged to reveal everything, in my view rightly, that itself will be an antidote.

Tim Boswell: That is hugely beneficial, but nobody should ever think that mere compliance with the rules represents the sufficient discharge of their responsibilities to the House or to their constituents. We must be absolutely straight in our dealings, but we must largely be the judges of that. We need independent input, first, on advice, because I am not sure that we have always received as much advice as would have been appropriate; and, secondly, on the right audit, filter and transparency, as my right hon. and learned Friend has just said.
	In doing all that, we must acknowledge, as the principles of the inquiry that the Commission has launched acknowledge, that we need adequate support in our work. However, it is wrong to keep legislating bit by bit, headline by headline. I am very struck by the remark in the issues and questions document from the Commission. Paragraph 1.12 states that
	the reforms so far have been restricted in focus and piecemeal in implementation. We believe it is time to conduct an open, thorough and independent public inquiry to lay this matter to rest for the foreseeable future and remove the corrosive effect it is having on public trust in the integrity of our politicians.
	That seems to be the right message. We need to do it, but we need to do it together and coherently.
	I mentioned at the beginning that I am deeply attached to this place. It is still the best way of running a society, and I do not want to leave it to a toxic combination of the affluent, who do not need the support, and the anoraks, who do not claim the support. We need to acknowledge change, but we must do so in a properly considered, independently validated, measured and coherent way.

Tony Wright: It is a rather large understatement to say that we are in a bit of a mess, but most of us who care about our politics and the reputation of the House think that we need to sort this mess out. Certain peoplewell represented in certain newspapersdo not want us to sort this mess out at all, because it provides such wonderful daily copy. The last thing that they want is to see us get hold of the issue and resolve it. Some of them would no doubt be content for us to sleep on benches in St. James's parkand if they were, they would still say that we were taking somebody else's bench. We know that all that is true, but it should give us an added incentive to ensure that we take steps to clear this mess up. We know, too, that things will get a lot worse before they get any better, and that conditions our approach to the issue. We saw it coming, however, and in a sense we have only ourselves to blame. This issue has not come out of a clear blue sky; it has been around for a very long time.
	I gave evidence to another inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, back in June 2002that is, seven years ago. I looked up the evidence, because I could vaguely remember it, and I said:
	My guess is that any future difficulties with Members of Parliament are far more likely to occur around issues to do with the allowances that they now get.... If you have lax rules, I am afraid you will have lax use of money and I can see this on a number of fronts going to happen. I can see, for example, not long before newspapers start running stories talking about the huge capital gains that MPs have made on their London houses... Unless you get hold of these issues now and think about them, they will come and hit us later on.
	Even then, for those of us who were in this place using and observing the system, it was not difficult to see that issues would come along and do us an awful lot of damage if we did not attend to them. So I told the Committee to get on with it, but of course it did not.
	When we had our biggest recent scandal at the beginning of last yearin February 2008I wrote to Sir Christopher Kelly to say:
	I write because I am concerned that you have not already announced that the Committee on Standards in Public Life will be conducting an immediate inquiry into the whole system of MPs' allowances...If this is not something for your Committee to respond to, in view of the reasons for its existence, I do not know what is.
	However, he took the view that we were going to attend to these issues ourselves, and we failed to do so. I agree with everyone who has talked about the damage that that is now doing: it is almost impossible to overstate it. It is fundamentally corrosive, not to one party or another but to the whole of our political system, and indeed to the whole of the practice of politics; it contaminates everything else that we do. People rightly say, If you can't sort this out, if you behave in this way in relation to your own affairs, how can we trust you with anything else? In a sense, that question is unanswerable.
	In some ways, it should be entirely simple. People, on the whole, are fair-minded. They know that, to do the job, we have to come and spend some nights in London, employ staff, and travel between one place and another. One would think that it should be reasonably straightforward to construct a system that reflects those basic needs, but we failed to do so. There is no point in us all canvassing our own preferred options on any of these issueswe all have different views on how we might resolve them. We have reached the point where we have conspicuously failed to do that ourselves, and we now have to ask someone to help us.

Daniel Kawczynski: I think that we all agree that there must be some form of reform. However, given that the cost of maintaining all our offices and all the work that we do as parliamentarians comes to about 92 million, which is less than two thirds of the aid that we give to Tanzania, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cost benefits that we provide are very good for the British taxpayer?

Tony Wright: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that by addressing that argument to his constituents he will convince them that nothing is wrong, he is not living in the same world as most of us.

Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony Wright: I will give way once more.

Gordon Prentice: Is not the core issue whether we decide our own pay and conditions or hand it over to someone else to decide for us?

Tony Wright: That will indeed be my core conclusion in a moment, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
	There is no point in our canvassing our preferred options on what we should do about this allowance or that allowance, because we have decided, rightly, that we have proved incapable of doing this, and we now need help urgently. When we give our evidence to Sir Christopher, we can say what we think about these things, but we can also be very clear about the principles involved, which are pretty straightforward. First, we should be compensated only for what we have actually spent. That was the fundamental objection to the idea of the daily allowance, in all its various versions that kept developing. Next, it has to be spent on essential items, by which I mean items with regard to which we can look our constituents in the eye and explain why they are essential for us to do our job. If we cannot do that, as in the case of some of the esoteric claims that have been around in recent times, there is no way that we can ever explain to our constituents why claims are essential to do the job. They may be very desirable to have, but they are not essential.
	We need a system with the right set of incentivesincentives to live rather modestly. The problem with the current system is that the incentives are entirely of the wrong kind. They are incentives to live immodestly and exploit the allowances to the maximum, by having a larger house than necessary because the mortgage interest will be paid, and then by adding fixtures to the house because it will increase its value and the taxpayer will pay for them. Those are entirely the wrong incentives.
	We must apply to any new system the principle that, as far as possible, it should be abuse-proof. Unfortunately, any system has a capacity to be abused. The problem with our system is that it invites abuse. In constructing a new system, we must ensure as far as we can that it diminishes the capacity for abuse.

David Clelland: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony Wright: I said that I would not give way again, but I shall do so one final time.

David Clelland: I thank my hon. Friend. He made the point about the need for Members to be compensated on the basis of what they actually spend. While one might be able to see the merit in that, is there not a danger that we will all be driven down to the level of what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) called the anoraks?

Tony Wright: I hope not. If we have definable essential items that we claim for, I cannot see anything wrong with that system. That is what we think the system ought to be. Having established the principles, we should crack down ruthlessly on any evidence of abuse of any new system.
	If the opportunity presents itself, I shall vote for the motions that I believe are right and desirable, while bearing in mind that Kelly may come to a different view. On some things, such as the staffing allowance, I shall abstain, because I am an agnostic. I do not know what is the best way to employ staff. By the way, we have the wrong target there. What concerns people about the staffing allowance is not who employs the staff but how it is abused. It is the abuse that needs attending to, not the cosmetic presentation of who employs the staff.
	Unfortunately, we have failed to sort this out ourselves over an extended period, and it now has to be done. I remind the House that a former Clerk of the House wrote to  The Guardian recently, saying that his great concern was that because we had the capacity to decide these things for ourselves, we had the capacity to subvert any recommendations that were put to us. He said that he had seen that many times in the past. He wrote:
	Members of Parliament are distinct from other elements of the public service, such as judges, army officers and senior civil servants, in having this ability to overturn, or covertly sabotage, the findings of the independent review body.
	That is what we do, as people have said, and it has brought us great difficulties. We must accept that this issue has needed sorting for a long time and is causing us and the whole system huge damage. We have failed to sort it out and we now have to turn finally to Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life and say, Will you please do it for us? That should have happened a long time ago.
	Sir Christopher has said in the past few days that he will give us not a menu of options to pick and choose from but a comprehensive set of recommendations. That is right, but the question is whether we accept those recommendations from an external, independent body. If it is possible to envisage things getting even worse, the worst outcome would be to get the Kelly recommendations and then start playing around with them. We should not canvass for our favoured schemes. Every party should say that it will not only wait for Kelly but accept Kelly. That is the only way that we will dig ourselves out of the hole that we are in.

George Young: Amendment (j) is in my name and that of every other member of my Committee. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said and I commend the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) for his remarks a few moments ago.
	Let me read to the House what it will agree if, as seems likely, the amendment is accepted:
	That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's decision on 23 March 2009 to invite the Committee on Standards in Public Life to inquire into Members' allowances; believes that in order to command maximum public support for change the House should defer its conclusions until after the Committee has reported; and further believes it would be desirable for the House to have an opportunity to consider any recommendations from the Committee as early as possible.
	The Government have said that they agree with that, and it would therefore be inconsistent for them to invite the House to reach conclusions before the Committee has reported. That would stand logic on its head and I invite them to think again. If they agree with my Committee about amendment (j), they should not proceed with the subsequent motions. Anything else is inconsistent and illogical and would defy what the House had agreed to.
	I do not challenge the procedural possibilities, but it appears illogical to say that we must not make decisions and then proceed to make them.

Chris Mullin: rose

George Young: I give way to a fellow member of my Committee.

Chris Mullin: I am most grateful. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government are unwise enough to go ahead and press the motions to a vote, abstaining is the logical action for Members to take?

George Young: Or, indeed, voting against, because hon. Members will have agreed not to make a decision.

David Curry: Does my right hon. Friend further agree that, if a substantive amendment, which, to all intents and purposes, replaces a full text, is not to be regarded as a replacement of that text, we must reconsider the House's procedure, which is based on amendments as a form of scrutiny? For example, yesterday's debate on the Gurkhas might have left us with both the Liberal Democrat motion and the Government amendment standing.

George Young: My right hon. Friend makes a thoughtful procedural point, which I do not propose to explore in great detail.

Ann Widdecombe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

George Young: May I begin to make the case for why my Committee acted as it did? I will give way to my right hon. Friend later.
	My Committee thought long and hard before deciding to intervene in the debate. My Committee likes to cruise in the stratosphere above the turbulence of party politics, and it is no part of our agenda to pick a fight with the Prime Minister on the matter that we are considering. We are a group of colleagues, appointed by the House, to have regard to the reputation of the House. Our view is that that is best served by the action that we propose.
	Indeed, far from disagreeing with the Prime Minister, we agree with him on the need for radical reform and we wrote to him on 31 March, welcoming his decision to invite Sir Christopher Kelly to conduct a thorough review of our allowances. We believe that that was the right way forward. Sir Christopher responded to the Prime Minister by rearranging his Committee's programme to accommodate the request. He has drafted and, indeed, circulated a consultation document, asking for evidence on all the issues before the House by 5 June. At that point, I think we were on the right track.
	Then, for reasons that have never been properly explained, the Prime Minister went on YouTube. I think that it would have been better to make an oral statement to the House, but perhaps I am old-fashioned. Some rushed decisions were announced. There was no consultation, even, we hear, with Cabinet colleagues. A new timetable for implementation was proposed and Kelly was pre-empted with conclusions about what should happen on key issues.
	It is not surprising, given the complexity of the issues and the haste of the exercise, that the wheels came off the coach on the matter that had generated the most controversy, namely the additional costs allowance, or personal additional accommodation expenditure, as it is now known. The Prime Minister's proposals to go on paying the money, but with no receipts, failed his own criteria of transparency and accountability.
	So, today, we have Hamlet without the princedecisions on some of the other matters referred to Kelly. If the reason for rushing things through was to allow the Prime Minister to say on 1 July that the ACA had been sorted, that alibi no longer exists. But rather than coming up with quick answers, we should come up with the right answers.

Ann Widdecombe: On the point that my right hon. Friend was making when I tried to intervene, which was about the inconsistency between his amendment being successful and proposals being pressed to the vote, has he received any indication from the Government about how they intend to proceed?

George Young: I only heard what the Leader of the House said in her speech, which was that she accepted my amendment, but that she was none the less going to invite the House to take a decision on subsequent resolutions. I could not follow the logic of that, but that is the only information that I have.
	We have two reasons for believing that we should allow Sir Christopher to proceed before we take a decision: one of principle and one of practicality. On principle, it cannot be right for the Government to ram their motion through the House as they propose. They want the House to take decisions today on resolutions tabled on Monday evening. There has been no consultation with the parties, no consultation with the Committees that will have to operate and police the system, no consultation with Back Benchers generally and little opportunity for us to discuss the matter with our staff.

Andrew Dismore: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: In a moment.
	That sits uneasily with how the Prime Minister said he would treat the House in his first statement as Prime Ministerto restore some of the independence that we had surrendered to the Executive and, to use the words in his Green Paper, to
	rebalance power between Parliament and the Government.
	The Prime Minister began his letter of 23 March to Sir Christopher Kelly with the following words:
	As you are aware, the pay and allowances for MPs are a matter for the House of Commons.
	When pressed at Prime Minister's questions a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister again said that the matter was one for the House. He was right: it is a matter for the House, and we should do what we think is right without the Government playing the loyalty card or claiming a monopoly of opinion on how best to proceed.
	Still on principle, what is the point of constraining Sir Christopher Kelly's committee with interim arrangements that may have to be changed months later? Interim changes mean that there will be further, later changes. On issues such as the employment of Members' staff, that is frankly unfair on those affected. On principle again, with some of the resolutions, the cart has been put before the horse. On Members' staff, I am invited to express an opinion now, and then the Commission will consider the proposition. I would prefer the Commission or Kelly to consider the proposition, and then I will express an opinion. For a range of reasons, my Committee decided unanimously that the House should be urged not to adopt instant, piecemeal or poorly considered provisions. Doing so runs the risk of creating confusion and chaos where we need consistency and consensus. The key thing is to restore public confidence, which we best achieve by allowing Sir Christopher to proceed with his work.
	I also have doubts about the practicability of some of the proposals. As an example of what will now be caught by the rules on financial interests, any hon. Member who receives a 30 fee for completing an opinion poll, even though the sum is donated to a local charity, will need to register that sum. Not only that, but they will be obliged each time to register the name of the organisation, its address and the amount of time that they spent on the phone. Also, if a colleague is presented with a bottle of wine after a speaking engagement, that becomes potentially registrable as earnings, as does the time spent at the function. That is because the Government, without any consultation, have abolished the de minimis threshold for categories 1, 2 and 3 in the register, which the House confirmed without a Division only two months ago.

Paul Beresford: There is another interesting repercussion. It appears that the third motion is intended to stop directorships with huge fees. However, some professionals have to practise to maintain their profession. Therefore, if on a Sunday morning, instead of playing golf or sitting reading the news of the Government's disasters

Robert Key: Or going to church.

Paul Beresford: Indeed, or even after going to church. If, instead of doing those things, I happen to see a few patientsthis point could affect hon. Members from any part of the HouseI will have to declare that if rumour is correct. However, if I went to church or played golf, which would make no difference to my constituency actions, I would not have to declare it.

George Young: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point right in the middle of my speech.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to the Chair of my Committee for giving way. Has there been any consultation with the registrar or the commissioner who would have to administer the proposed system? The practicalities that the right hon. Gentleman is outliningand, indeed, many otherswould be horrendous, and dealing with them would present real difficulties.

George Young: Of course I had consultations with the registrar before I explained the implications of some of the resolutions before the House. Whether the Government have had similar consultations with the registrar, I do not know. I do not know whether it was the intention of the Leader of the House that she would have to register the bottle of wine that she might receive after making a moving speech at a dinner, but the time would be registrable.

Chris Bryant: First, I just want to clarify that the Government did have discussions with the registrar, as would be appropriate. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong in his interpretation of how the proposals in the motion would work. They would not change category 5 in relation to gifts, benefits and hospitality. The change would relate only to directorships and remunerated employment.

George Young: I said what I said after consultation with the Registrar of Members' Interests.
	I have no outside interests, but I am cautious about registering the hours as proposed. My personal view is that our constituents would be more interested, and surprised, to hear how many hours a week we work for them, rather than how many hours we do not.
	My Committee has been accused of trying to kick the ball into the long grass, and misrepresented as seeking to preserve our allowances for as long as possible. That is not the case. The Kelly inquiry is not the long grass; it is the best, and possibly the last, chance to get this right. For reasons of public interest, not self-interest, we believe that it would be a mistake to go ahead as the Government plan to do. We also believe that we should not pre-empt Kelly. Only the proposals that flow from an independent inquiry will command public confidence. Let Kelly and his Committee come to their own independent conclusions; then the House can decide. In the meantime, the Government should not dictate to them, or to us.

Barry Sheerman: There is always a certain reluctance to talk about these matters, and I do not think that I have spoken in the House about Members' pay and allowances before. It is worth looking back at the history. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was right in what he said; indeed, we tabled an amendment to the motion, but it was not selected for discussion. I ask us all to have a sense of the history of these arrangements because we have long failed to grapple with them.
	We all know that the central problem is the reluctance over many years to increase the salary of Members of Parliament to a sufficient level. We also know that Governments of all political persuasions have said, It's all right, we'll give you some help through the expenses you can claim. The mileage allowance is an example. I remember when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister there was a rebellion among Conservative Members because she would not implement the pay rise that had been recommended by an independent inquiry. What happened? The next thing we knew was that we had the largest ever increase in mileage allowance, as long as we had a car of more than 2,000 cc. We all remember that, and we all remember the subsequent changes in the types of cars in the car park beneath the House.
	There has been tension over these matters for a long time. Another tension exists, to which the House should pay careful attention. It is all very well for an independent body to decide how we should be paid and what our allowances should be, but we all know that normally, as soon as the committees have reported to the House, whichever Prime Minister has been in power at the time has said, Oh, this is very embarrassing. We can't possibly be seen to increase the salary of Members of Parliament. Prime Ministers of all parties have failed to agree to the recommendations, and arrangements have been made with the Whips to water them down or modify them in some way. That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and I tabled our amendment today.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made a clear point in this regard, but he did not take the final step which would be for the leaders of the three main parties to say that whatever happens with the Kelly report, they will accept it. That is the way to get real independence in the House and to free ourselves from the sort of criticism that we have brought on ourselves from the public. The challenge from Back-Bench Members is to tell the leaders of our individual parties that that is what we need.
	We have done that before, even on policy issues. I remind the House of the agreement on the Dearing inquiry into higher education. Even in the run-up to an election, the leaders of the three main parties said that they would hold off making decisions on the future of higher education until Lord Dearing had published his report. All three parties stuck to that agreement and we got a rather better policy initiative than we otherwise would.

Dari Taylor: I totally agree with all my hon. Friend says about independence, but does he accept that the committee, and Sir Christopher Kelly in particular, must understand the life that we lead here? It is crucial that people understand the hours that we work and the type of life that we have here.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was to say next, which is the only other point I want to make.
	When I came into the House, we had a system that I thought worked very badly. I saw people from my part of the world, 200 miles from this House, renting the cheapest accommodation they could find in a trade union hostel or a cheap hotel. People came here and slept in their little beds in their little cells or their shabby little bedrooms. After four dayswe sat late on four nightsthey went back to their constituencies. That was corrosive of family life. If one does not have a decent place in one's constituency and near this House, family life will be destroyed. It means that MPs say goodbye to their partners and come down here on their own. The rule was that you never saw your family. That is destructive of family life and it means that very strange people end up being MPs. We have seen a better cross-section of real people since we changed the rules. Let us take this issue seriously but let us give the message to Sir Christopher Kelly about the way MPs operate and the way we wish to have our lives in the future. We must stand up to ensure there is a real appreciation of how MPs work and live.
	My last point is this. I have made myself relatively unpopular elsewhere by asking, Who has stood up for the hardworking MP who works a 15-hour day and works on Select Committees? Indeed, I have made myself very unpopular because I believeI am looking at the Father of the House, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who knows that I have made this case many timesthat there should be extra payment for those who work so hard on Select Committees. That would make me very unpopular out there, but I think it is right for people who do that extra work. Otherwise, we will end up with lots of unpaid deputy Whips and unpaid deputy Ministers. The independent Back Bencher who serves on Select Committees and does all the jobs in the House will be difficult to find.
	The right thing today is to accept the amendment that supports the Select Committee's view. I will vote against the other measures today reluctantly, because I agree with some and I hope that they are in Kelly. But I will vote against them, because it is wrong to anticipate what Kelly will produce. Kelly is undertaking an independent review, which we should accept. Let us put the spotlight on the leaders of the two Opposition parties, and on the Prime Minister, so they say, Whatever it says, we will back it.

Derek Conway: It is said that politics is a vain callingthat people stand in this place and say, Hear my views. Look at me, look at me. I suspect that all Members of the House have looked at me in great detail and I still bear the scars. It would be a vanity on my part, however, to think that the Government's proposals on the employment of staff are down to the experiences that have been well publicised in this place and in the media. Therefore, one must wonder: why the haste?
	More than 200 close family members are employed by Members of Parliament. Many more employ lovers, who are not necessarily known to be related, and many more again employ in-laws because of the difference in their surnames. No doubt the total number of relatives employed by Members of the House is 250 rather than the lower estimate. Is that wrong? People will make their own judgments about my case, and they have done so. However, many Members of Parliament find it convenient to employ family members, not necessarily to supplement their income, because many MPs take a drop in salary when they come to this placeI halved my salary when I came back. Many Members employ family because of availability and reliability, and as many Members have experienced before me, family members are often employed for confidentiality and convenience. Is it just the money? I am not sure that that is the case, and it will be interesting to see how the Commission addresses the problems of central employment.
	As I experienced during the investigation of two years into my personal activities and those of my family, the Standards and Privileges Committee, whose distinguished Chairman has spoken today, wanted to know whether there was a need for the person to be employed by the Member of Parliament, whether they were able to do the jobpresumably two-year-olds would not applywhether they were actually doing the job, and whether the reward for what they did was reasonable, which, one would expect, is a test that will apply to every Member of the House.
	However, the standard of proof varies, and I say to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee that if his reports are contrasted, they will show that there is a difference in the standards applied, not only by the current Committee but by previous Committees, to the Members before them. The House will recall the treatment that led to the loss of Elizabeth Filkin's services, in relation to the case of the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), and more recently the comparison between the investigation into my family and that into the employment arrangements of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman).
	Interestingly, when my elder son Henry was being investigated, the commissioner, who is a polite and decent man, was extraordinarily thorough. However, levels of thoroughness are a human failing, for us all. In Henry's examination, there were long-distance calls to Canada, with witness statements being taken. Cleverly, the commissioner even found a secretary who had worked in the office, and had long since left, but unfortunately she remembered seeing Henry and seeing what he did. By mere coincidence, there was even a photograph of him helping at a function. One tried to gather together the evidence. That compares interestingly with the later Committee report, for which some of the witnesses who had been reported in the press were not even contacted and asked for their opinion. By contrast, my son sat for two and a half hours giving evidence before the commissioner. One wonders whether Committees of the House, as we know from experience, bend over backwards to try to protect Front Benchers if they possibly can.
	In my case, both commissioners found that my sons had worked, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, when he was not busy trying to sort out computer contracts for his friends, took a particular interest in my case, as he was anxious that it should be prosecuted. The Crown Prosecution Service

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that the Member who is addressing the House accepted the punishment of the House, apologised unreservedly and paid back the money that was taken, is not this speech rather an abuse of that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I see no point of order in the question. Every hon. Member is responsible for the remarks that they make in this Chamber and will be assessed accordingly. I call Mr. Derek Conway.

Derek Conway: I in no way question how the Standards and Privileges Committee conducted its case with meI accepted fully what it saidbut that does not prevent me, any other Member of this House or any member of the public from contrasting the different reports that the Committee produces. It found in my case that the issue hung on the level of reward. Henry, my eldest son, was paid at the second quartile of the lowest grade. That is relevant to the debate that the House has been having on the employment of staff, including those related to Members of Parliament. As I know from bitter personal experience, my son, who was at the second quartile of the lowest grade and was a part-time student, was judged to have been paid too highly. Therefore, one awaits with interest any inquiries that are made into the husband of the Home Secretary, who is paid at the top of the highest grade while being a full-time house husband.
	Speculation about what Members of this House are doing and what is reported in the papers should apply to all Members, not just some. How these points in the salary scales are arrived at remains a mystery to me. In my case, the Committee decided that it would have been appropriate for my son to have been paid at the entry point of the lowest grade, with an annual cost of living and a 2 per cent. annual performance increase. That is not laid down by the House authorities anywhere; I have not seen it applied anywhere else. I do not think I am challenging the Committee by raising this, because I shall be raising it with the House authorities in the coming months.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it difficult to believe that an hon. Member who has accepted the findings of a Committee in a disciplinary case of his can subsequently come back to the House and call into question the judgments that that Committee has made. That seems to be what the hon. Member is doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that a point of order is involved. I have made one ruling. Every hon. Member must be responsible for what they say in this Chamber and, short of an attack on or criticism of another hon. or right hon. Member, it is a matter of judgment for which every one of us will be held accountable. I have not heard anything that causes me to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order, but he is responsible for what he says and he must consider carefully what he does say.

Derek Conway: I am not challenging what the Committee is saying. What I am asking is that if Members are looking for guidance on what level of pay to set for their staff, should they look to the House authorities, to the Green Book or to personnel practice? The Committee's different decisions in different cases do not necessarily help to provide that guidance, but they set a precedentthat is the point I wish to make. Interestingly, I think that although the Government are using great haste to try to resolve this matter, it will not end today. My inquiry went back eight years, so whatever the Government or the House decide today, this matter will not finish today. I have resigned myself to being the Admiral Byng of this Parliament, but that does not stop me developing a new hobby, and I believe that those Members of this House who have employed close family members should look a little more closely at the Committee's decisions on levels of pay and how interest each year should be applied. I do not think for one moment that the inquiries into how Members have employed their staff will end with tonight's debate.

John Mann: One underlying theme resonates throughout this debate, sometimes spoken, sometimes not, and I hope that the Kelly committee will determine its views on this absolutely. I am talking about the pay of Members of this House. I take a different view from many of those who have suggested that Members of Parliament are badly paid. I think that the level of remuneration is appropriate, but we will all have a dilemma if we hand over pay to an outside body. The principle of elected Members not determining their own pay is a higher and more important principle than the actual level of that pay. I hope that the level of pay would not go up if it were determined independently in the future. I also hope that all hon. Members would agree that if pay levels are to be determined independently, whether after Kelly or at some later stage, we should not then be able to vote on that decision and nor should Governments be able to do so in the future. That independence should be retained.
	I am also strongly of the view that the level of expenses should be determined externally and not internally by the House. Two aspects of the terminology used in this debate cloud it dangerously. The first is the use of the word allowances. There is a fundamental difference between allowances and expenses, and the fact that Members are able to use the two words interchangeably demonstrates the confusion of this debate. I hope that the Kelly review will look at expenses and will determine that the concept of allowances has been part of the problem. If its view is that MPs are underpaid, it should say so, but that should not be hidden in allowances. The pretext of the allowance system that has been built up is precisely why people regard the issue with horror.
	The second term that has been used inaccurately today is abuse. There have been abuses, but it can be argued that even those examples were overuses rather than abuses, because they took place within the system. That is why those examples have not been referred to authorities outside the House such as, for example, the police. They have been examples of overuse, not abuse. The so-called abuses that we have seen in recent monthssometimes several are revealed in one weekendare overuses of the system. There is a question about whether such usage is right or moral, which constituents will throw at all of us, but it fell within the system. Of course, the more extravagant our usage of the system, the more extreme the criticism, and that may well be appropriate, but it is the system itself that is rotten.
	I shall give some theoretical examples. Under the system at the moment, it is possiblealthough the House refuses to release the informationfor some 150 Members to claim an overnight allowance not for coming to Parliament, but for living in their constituency. Is that right? The Leader of the Opposition may be one such person. There is no question of abuse of the system, and nothing is being hidden, but is that right? Is it right that 24,000 of mortgage interest can be claimed by a wealthy Member of Parliament so that they can have an expensive house in a constituency that is not that far away from London? It would be appropriate for the Kelly committee to consider that issue. There are dilemmas, and legitimate arguments could be made on both sides. However, that is precisely the kind of dilemma that the committee should be considering.
	A similar question arises about family members and spouses. Of course, it would be straightforward to say, That should be banned, but arrangements might well occur that were not in the public domain. Is that any different or any better? Honourable single Members might marry previously unmarried members of staff. Should those members of staff immediately be barred from working? That dilemma must be addressed by any simple solution.
	It is much easier to deal with some of the other points. For example, under the current system it is possible for a Member who has owned their house in totality with no mortgage for many years to take out a mortgage and to claim that money back. Is that justified at the expense of the taxpayer? It seems to me that it is not. Let me give another, more difficult examplealthough I do not think that it is overly difficult. A Member might own a house at value X and claim the full amount. If the allowance goes up significantly, is it right that that Member, in the course of their duties, should feel that it is appropriate to buy a bigger, more expensive property and to claim the full amount? It seems to me, as the taxpayer is paying, that that is not appropriate. However, both of those examples have been allowed within the system, particularly since the big increase in the allowance in 2001. Such things are a use of the system and it seems to me that we need to get real about it.
	If one maximised mortgage interest at 24,000 with a standard mortgage nine months ago, at today's mortgage rates 16,000 would now be available. Is it justified that the maximum allowance should be based at 24,000at 222? It seems to me that that is not justified. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has left his seat, but there is a varied view on what is a reasonable standard of living and a reasonable property. There will never be any agreement here or among any other group of 600-odd members of the British public about what is reasonable. However, the British public perceive that 24,000 is not reasonable in order to carry out such duties. That is what underlies public concern, from what I hear.

John Bercow: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I am from that wing of the Tory party that pays mortgages and buys its own furniture. I always have been. However, I understand the distinction that he is making between expenses and allowances, and his focus on what might be described, for want of a better term, as contrived mortgages. Might one means by which to tackle this problem be for Sir Christopher to consider the imposition of a time limita span over which people could claimthat could not be exceeded, so that people could not claim for 40 years, long after most people out there would cease to have had a mortgage?

John Mann: All sorts of systems could be proposed. However, the critical point is that there should be a defendable cap on the amount of money that can be spent. I have suggested that that cap should be decided on a civil service basis. Civil servants in Sheffield or Leeds can claim 127.50 per overnight stay, or per 24 hours. That would, of course, get one into what I have described as the Travelodge in County Hall. In fact, apparently, it is the Premier Inn in County Hall. I was offered the opportunity to road test itindeed, I already have done and those expenses will come out in a few months' time for people to see. I do not suggest that Members should have to live in County Hall or any other Travelodge-type accommodation, but it seems to me that if the number of nights on which we have to be here on parliamentary duty is about 120, a civil service rate based on what a civil servant from out of London would require in order to come into London ought to be the cap. Whether the money is spent on buying or renting property or on staying in hotels is not important. The problem for us outside the House is the perceptionthe realitythat we can claim large amounts of consumer goods. People believe that parliamentarians claim too much money in the course of their duties, and we need to rectify that speedily.
	We need to be able to defend what we do. People must perceive not that we are greedy but that we are tightening our belts. That is the price that we are going to have to pay for retaining systems that we could have changed. We are in a recession, so tightening our belts for the next few years will be appropriate. I hope that that is what we vote for, or what the Kelly committee asks us to do.
	Several hon. Members:  rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a difficult decision to make, because there are many more hon. Members wishing to speak than there is time available, given the present limit on speeches. I shall probably be unpopular with some but bring joy to others if I now cut the time limit to five minutes in an effort to get the widest possible representation. I call Mr. Greg Mulholland.

Greg Mulholland: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I begin by saying that I love this job, and that I am very proud to be a Member of Parliament? I can say that I genuinely try to do the job to the best of my ability, and I believe that the same is true for the vast majority of Members of this House.
	Just a couple of weeks ago, however, I had one of those rare moments when I questioned whether I really wanted to carry on doing the job. That moment came on the day that the so-called MPs' expenses league tables came out, when the story was all about our 93 million gravy train and how we all had our snouts in the trough. That hurt me, as I am sure that it hurt the vast majority of hon. Members to whom such remarks are grossly unfair.
	As we all know, we have very little right of reply to such stories, but the problem was actually far harder for my wife. She told me that she was too embarrassed to go out that day because of what the neighbours would say. People presumably think that we keep the Jag around the back, and that we somehow hide the vast amounts of money that come rolling in. That is exactly the perception fostered by the media: one newspaper said that, by making an average claim for allowances of 144,000, we were effectively trebling our salaries. That is absolutely absurd, but how can we sort the problem out? I have to admit that I am feeling embarrassed again about the nature of the debate that we are having today, and about the farcical situation that we find ourselves in. I shall make that situation clear, as no one has done so up to now.
	We face a very difficult choice. We are about to vote on a hotch-potch of recommendations that are not at all coherent, although some have more merit than others. Alternatively, we can refer the whole matter to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and get accused by the media and the public of kicking it into the long grass. What a choice that is. Why are we in this position? We are in it because the Prime Minister came up with a half-baked and entirely inappropriate set of proposals that sidelined the House of Commons. I think that all hon. Members would agreeeven the majority of those on the Government Bencheswith the view among people outside the House that this is another fine mess that the Prime Minister has gotten us into. I fail to see how we can get ourselves out of that mess today.
	At least the nonsense of the proposed daily allowance has been rejected. That would have given us a clock-in culture, causing people to turn up to Parliament whether they were needed here or not. It would have penalised constituency-focused MPs but, most of all, it would not have been transparent. It would have allowed hon. Members who did not need the money to pocket it and to benefit from it.
	We do have principles to followthe seven principles of public life. The first states:
	Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
	We sign claim forms to a similar end, saying:
	I claim reimbursement of these costs which I incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of my parliamentary duties
	Sadly, we have now thrown that out and have the nonsense about saying that the amounts claimed comply with the Green Book.
	On one area I disagree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Yes, some of the things that he mentioned are uses of the system, but there have been abuses of the system. If the Prime Minister wanted to show true leadership, he would not have come forward with this half-baked set of proposals sidelining the House of Commons. He would have had the courage to sack those Ministers who have clearly been abusing the system. I am talking about misappropriation of public funds for personal gain. That is precisely what has happened in a number of examples, and it is unacceptable. The sad truth is that there have been abuses, and they have led simply to a slap on the wrist. Is it any wonder that the public have no confidence in us to make this sort of decision?
	I shall be voting for some of the measures today because I feel that I cannot in conscience not do so, even though this is a farce. I shall be roundly rejecting the ludicrous suggestion that we can no longer employ our staffour wonderful staff who serve our constituents with no praise for themselves. I am afraid that we are in a situation that we cannot get ourselves out of today, and the Prime Minister must accept the blame for that.

Natascha Engel: I want to speak today, more briefly than I had intended, about the fact that we cannot take any decision on expenses because we clearly have a vested interest and therefore a conflict of interest in the financial matters that concern us.
	Today's system has evolved over decades, and the problems should have been resolved decades ago. They have not been resolved because there is an assumption that we are honourable Members, but clearly the world outside this Chamber disagrees. We are getting into an ever bigger mess. We need to find today a credible and workable solution; the consequences of not doing so are potentially devastating.
	When I knock on doors and hold surgeries, people say the same thing over and again: politicians are all the same, we are in it for ourselves, we are lining our pockets and our snouts are firmly in the trough. The most frightening thing they say, in large numbers, is that they are not going to vote. The only people who benefit from people's disengagement are hate-preaching, anti-political parties such as the British National party. The BNP exploits the failure of mainstream politics. All mainstream politicians should take responsibility for that failure.
	We have had plenty of opportunities and we have missed every one. Across the political spectrum, we must now accept that we have failed to do anything about it, and we must seek some professional help from an independent and credible public servant. Sir Christopher Kelly should be allowed to get on with his review of MPs' expenses without interference from us, and his findings should be binding on the House.
	We have recently received an invitation from Sir Christopher to send submissions to his committee for consideration. Attached to the invitation was an issues and questions document that outlined the scope of the inquiry. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) has just alluded to the seven principles of public life laid out on the first page of the document. It is worth in the brief time that I have left naming those principles one by one. The first is selflessness. As holders of public office, we should act only in the public interest. We should not do so to gain financial or material benefits for ourselves, our family or our friends. The interpretation of what constitutes the public interest might be open for political debate, but the principle of not being motivated by greed or to advance the interests of our family or friends is straightforward.
	The second principle is integrity. We should not place ourselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that want to influence us. Being a politician, especially a Member of Parliament, is a privilege. There are not many of us in the country, and it is easy to become seduced by power and its trappings. We must remember why we are hereto serve and not to be served. By maintaining our integrity and remembering what we were elected to do, we can go some way towards doing the right thing.
	The other principles are objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. I want briefly to talk about openness. We should not have tried to exempt ourselves from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, just to avoid personal embarrassment at the publication of our receipts. We took the decision to make those claims against the public purse; we must state why we made those claims, by explaining to people what we do. If people are still unhappy about the claims that we have made, we must take the consequences. At the moment, we retreat and hide. The only right response is to accept that scrutiny and be more open, not less. We should explain our actions and not hope that the media storm will blow over.
	The publication of the receipts will be very embarrassing. Every last tiny receipt will be used in every piece of election literature for ever, and every current MP will be affected. It might seem unfair, but that has happened because, until now, we have been working in a system that is not open. It is now our duty as incumbent MPs who are responsible for the current system to do something about it for the generation that follows us, because that generation will be given a chance to uphold the principles of openness in public life.

Angela Watkinson: I am heartily sick of reading that we are collectively guilty before being proved innocent of dishonesty, greed and corruption. That is deeply offensive to the vast majority of MPs who have integrity and work long and hard in the interests of their constituents. The focus of the debate is entirely on what we receive, or, as the papers describe it so delightfully, what we trouser or pocket: other professionals receive remuneration in return for their services, but MPs have their snouts in the trough, as though we do not work at all and are entitled to nothing. No mention whatever is made of the demands of the job, the long hours, the seven-day working week, the complexity and range of knowledge required or the level of responsibility.
	There is the constituency job and the one in Westminster. We forget weekends as others know them. We are on duty in a multitude of different ways, being involved in our local communities and organisations, and we are happy to be so. But heads must rollthe fourth estate demands itand the tumbrels are rumbling. Outer- London Members have been chosen as the sacrificial lambs, and we are relatively small in number and we may not exert much pulling power as a group.
	Upminster is just about as far from Westminster as one can get and still be in London. After working for 12 to 15 hours, it is not reasonable to be expected to arrive home after midnight and return early the next morning; it means having no personal time at all. The presumption that outer-London Members can commute is simply wrong. Nor is it reasonable or appropriate to expect us to live out of suitcase. It would be a thoroughly miserable existence.
	If my accommodation allowance is discontinued, I shall have the following the options. I could give up my Westminster flat, which, incidentally, is an ex-Westminster council flat in a rather unlovely 1960s concrete block. It is nothing at all like the image that is created of second homes. It would not be the first choice to live in of many people whom I know.
	I could keep my constituency home and commute to Westminster, but that would mean having to reduce my working hours substantially to what other professions would consider normal but would be part-time for a Member of Parliament. It would certainly not be compatible with Whips Office hours.
	Alternatively, I could give up my constituency home and live in Westminster, so that I could continue to play a full parliamentary role. I would then have to visit my constituency daily on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. During recess, when most of my work is in the constituency, there would be an obvious problem of finding short-term furnished accommodation. None of those arrangements is acceptable.
	If outer-London Members are excluded from future accommodation allowances, there will be a return to the days when only people with personal or family wealth could afford to represent outer-London constituencies. The current MP's salary is not enough for an individual to run two homes, one of which is in central London.
	Treating MPs collectively with contempt has become a national game, and we have become public enemy No. 1. We have a vocation, not a job, which involves a total loss of personal privacy and a salary that compares badly with the civil service, quangos, local government, the police, the judiciary, the health service and other taxpayer-funded public servicesas well as the BBC, that politically neutral public broadcasting company. All those bodies have escaped the level of scrutiny to which Members of Parliament are being subjected. It is unjust that we have been singled out when many people in the publicly funded professions that I have listed earn four and five times as much as we do.
	The inevitable changes must be thought through properly. It is quite right that we await the results of the independent Kelly report, although I have reservations about whether a committee made up of people who have not experienced life in Parliament can truly understand the strange life that we lead.

Ann Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend recall that the last time we had a set of independent recommendations on allowances, the poor souls involved were so deluded that they proposed that we should lose thousands of pounds for every member of staff whom we employed on the parliamentary estate, and Members on both sides of the House had to reject the recommendation? The recommendation was independent, but it was based on misunderstanding, so we must have the flexibility to challenge any misunderstanding.

Angela Watkinson: My right hon. Friend is right. One needs to experience this life to understand fully what it is like and all its implications.
	I will make a personal suggestion, which will be unpopular, that would get us out of all these difficulties and save the taxpayer money at the same time. The accommodation allowance, which is not taxable, should be transferred to salary, which is taxable. MPs would then experience an immediate loss of income equivalent to 40 per cent. of the accommodation allowanceabout 10,000 in additional tax liability. That should satisfy the mob feeding frenzy that has been whipped up by the media as national entertainment. That amount could also be made exempt from pension, if necessary. There could be a further saving to the taxpayer, because the administration of the system would be much simpler, and the proposal would prevent gross intrusion into all our personal lives, so I think it would be a price worth paying.

Gordon Prentice: Most of us here get just over 64,000, and I do not complain about it because that is a king's ransom for people in Pendle. The Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made a point about Kelly, but he does not come from the planet Pluto. He will take evidencethe evidence sessions will be held in publicso to ensure that there are no misunderstandings, it will be open to Members to make submissions, and no doubt she will do so.
	It is a colossal mistake that we are having the debate at all, and an even bigger mistake to be having any votes. The whole shooting match should be handed over to Kelly. The YouTube was almost too horrible to watchit was terrible. I was flinching as I watched the performance, and it became obvious that the proposals had not been thought through for one moment.
	The Prime Minister's decision was announced to the nation in that way only about 16 hours after a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, at which we could have been taken into his confidence and said to him, The daily allowance, Gordon, will not work. All Members then suffered the indignity of hearing an official spokesperson for No. 10 saying about the per diem proposal, to which the Prime Minister was so wedded until recently:
	One of the advantages of the daily allowance is that it does provide them
	that is us
	with an incentive to attend
	Parliament. That is disgraceful. I find it offensive that some unnamed source in No. 10 says that we need to be paid a daily allowance to turn up here and do our job.
	Christopher Kelly has saidand I agreethat the whole parliamentary expenses issue has been
	the single most damaging issue for public trust in politicians
	in the past 15 years. Who could disagree with that? Colleagues have sheltered behind rules; they said that they had not broken any rules when those rules offended against common sense. People were saying, We're not going to think the better of you because you obeyed these perverse rules. The rules need to be rewrittena point made by my friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).
	Sir Christopher Kelly said of parliamentary expenses:
	This is not something that should be left to politicians to sort out for themselves.
	When, on 10 February this year, he came before the Public Administration Committee, which my friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) chairs, he asked:
	should Members of Parliament have the right to set their own pay and allowances...the answer is clearly, no.
	We will get out of this mess only if we hand everything over to an independent body, even though some of the recommendations may be uncomfortable. Perhaps there are people who say, This Parliament is sovereign, so we cannot delegate these decisions to an independent body. I say that they are wrong. I want pay and allowances to be like a devolved matter. When I go to the Table Office and want to table a question about some arcane thing that is happening in Scotland, the Clerk will say, I am sorry, Mr. Prentice, you cannot table that because it's a devolved matter. Pay and allowances for Members of Parliament should be a devolved matter, and we should have nothing to do with it.
	I come to my final point. I have heard a lot of really good speeches today, including from my friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), my friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who spoke just a moment ago, and of course my friend the Member for Cannock Chase. The system will just turn to dust yet again if, when we get the recommendations from Sir Christopher Kelly, we pick and choose. We have to accept the entire package of recommendations without amendment. That is the way for us to rebuild public trust in this institution, and in us as individual politicians.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, but not with his last main point, and not because we are a sovereign House. I ask him to reflect on this: if we cannot trust ourselves, and cannot be trusted by the British people to sort out our own pay and allowances, how on earth can we be trusted with the nuclear deterrent, the state of the economy and the other much more important things with which we are meant to be trusted? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the sane point that the proposals may be very good, but may require adjustment. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle that if we are to adjust those proposals, we will have to do so with great care.
	When the Leader of the House appeared to accept the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, I thought that we would have an outbreak of real dignity and common sense in the House. Instead, we have had a scrappy, miserable debate, albeit illuminated by some exceptional speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave a heartfelt speech. How can Members on the Treasury Bench force through the amendment on Greater London Members having heard that speech? I noted that the Leader of the House kindly came to the Chamber to hear those remarks, and I hope that she will address the issue when she winds up.
	Having accepted the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, we cannot just go back to a sticking-plaster on the discredited system that is the Green Book. The Green Book is a discredited system, and the failure to accept that fundamental point for some time has got us into more and more problems. Various comments have been made about our allowances and salaries. That is the fundamental problem: what we claim, our expenses, have in fact become part of our remuneration, and the public will never accept that. They will also never accept the special tax rules that we give ourselves. Members ought to try explaining to a small business man in their constituency why we should have rules, with Revenue and Customs, that we would never dream of giving them. There is quite an argument for handing back to HMRC the whole question of what we get and what should and should not be taxed, so that we are treated like ordinary citizens, instead of treating ourselves as special.
	We must recognise that those fundamental problems have arisen because we have moved from an age of deference to an age of reference: from an age when people respected institutions for what they purported to be, to an age when people, through the internet and the media, expect individual accountability and exposure in a way that was never accepted before. We are 20 years behind the rest of society in that respect. The denial in respect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, furthermore, was a crass own goal for which those responsible should take some responsibility. Voters are also angry because MPs appear to cost more and more but to do less and less: shorter hours, longer recesses, less and less power to scrutinise legislation properly, fewer and fewer votes on substantive issues and more and more decisions taken in Whitehall, Brussels and elsewhere.
	We must, however, take ultimate responsibility for the outcome. The advantage of the Kelly approach is that he will return to some fundamental principles, and we ought to approach these questions from first principle, instead of trying to patch up the existing system. What is the role of a Member? What does he or she require to do his or her job? What is it legitimate to expect the taxpayer to pay for? How should the system command public confidence?
	The great danger, for example, of instantly deciding that a panacea for one of our problems is the direct employment of our staff by the House is that it fundamentally misunderstands the role of a Member. We should be strengthening our ability to make independent judgments on behalf of our constituents and in the interests of our nation, instead of becoming part of a more and more amorphous corporation. We enter the House not to join the establishment but to challenge the establishment, and the independence of our arrangements in our offices is absolutely fundamental to that purpose. The Kelly commission must be made to understand that.

Hugh Bayley: Ever since I have been a Member, I have found it invidious to have to vote on my pay and allowances. We should delegate that responsibility to others, and I welcome the decision to refer the question to Sir Christopher Kelly's committee. If we refer matters to an independent body, we should respect its independence and not seek to micro-manage its work or to tell it what conclusions to reach. The wisest course for the House would be to pass the proposition tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and accepted by the Government, and then to let the other questions lie on the Table.
	I have tabled an amendment to motion 4(1) which seeks to improve the pension entitlement of MPs' staff, but, to be consistent with what I have just said, I shall not press my amendment if it is called. However, I wish to discuss the questions that underlie it, because I should like them to be considered by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the House of Commons Commission.
	My staff are extremely important to me; I simply could not do my job on behalf of my constituents without their support. My staff research, draft and type more than 1,000 letters a month to and on behalf of my constituents, and they do a great deal of other work in my constituency on their behalf. The House staff are important, too. The text of my amendment was drafted by Clerks and, at this very moment, a Library researcher is looking into a question for me. Both the House staff and Members' own staff are paid from the House budget, but there is a glaring discrepancy in their terms of employment. House staff benefit from a public sector final salary pension scheme, while our staff are entitled to join a stakeholder scheme, the Portcullis pension plan, or, if they have served us rather longer, that or some other money purchase scheme of their choosing.
	I give as an example the situation of one of my members of staff, who has worked for me for the 17 years that I have been in Parliament and who is paid on one of the higher pay scales for Members' staff. After 17 years of pension contributions, when she reaches the age of 60, she will have earned, through the money purchase scheme, a pension of about 2,900 per year, which is only partly index linked. Because she is in a money purchase scheme, she is also entitled to receive a state second pensionI am glad that this Labour Government brought that inwhich will perhaps increase her pension entitlement by some 3,000 a year. I asked the Department of Resources to calculate what a House of Commons employee on a similar pay point with the same length of service would have earned in the House of Commons pension scheme. It is difficult, of course, to compare one pension scheme with another, but its best estimate is that she would have earned, at age 60, a pension of some 8,000; and the House of Commons scheme is fully index linked.
	MPs' staff are clearly at a disadvantage, but it is not, in my view, a huge and unfundable disadvantage. I was reassured when my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) said that the House of Commons Commission would consider the pension entitlement of MPs' staff when considering the case for transferring them to the House of Commons payroll. I recognise that cost is an important consideration, and that serious questions are being asked in this House, and in the country as a whole, about the continuing affordability of public sector final salary schemes. However, I hope that the Commission will consider both the practicability of allowing MPs' staff to join the House of Commons staff pension scheme and alternative ways of improving their pension entitlement. They are public servants who are as important to the public in our constituencies as any other staff of the House, and they should not be disadvantaged.
	I have not spoken often in debates about Members' allowances because, as I said, I think that it is invidious for us to make decisions about our own pay and conditions. However, that does not apply to the pay and conditions of our staff; indeed, we have a responsibility openly and transparently to make decisions about how they should be remunerated and to see that they are properly and fairly remunerated.

Jo Swinson: Some Members will know that I am a bit of a fan of new technology. I like using podcasts, Twitter and Facebook to engage with my constituents. In particular, I have campaigned in the Housefor example, through early-day motion 1319to allow clips of Parliament to be shown on YouTube. Perhaps, amid all the criticism, we should commend the Prime Minister for at least trying to embrace new technologyalthough, sadly, he has not quite got the hang of it. He said in his YouTube video that he wanted to hear the public's views on MPs' expenses, but then did the online equivalent of putting his hands over his ears by disabling the comment function. That does not make sense.

Diane Abbott: I share the hon. Lady's enthusiasm for new technology, but my fundamental objection to the Prime Minister's appearance on YouTube is that, instead, he or the Leader of the House should have come to this House and made a statement that could have been questioned.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady has made her point.
	It is certainly true that there were many concerns about the procedural way in which this matter came to our attention. The concept of the Government trying to reach out more through electronic technology is, in itself, a good one, but it has to be done properly. The Prime Minister does not really do listening. Instead, in a frantic rush to be seen to be doing somethinganythingabout this issue, he did not stop to think whether he was doing the wrong thing. We ended up with that ridiculous proposal, apparently intended to try to promote better transparency, to give us the cash, no questions asked, for turning up at the House of Commons. I am very glad that that did not make it on to today's Order Paper. However, there is no denying that the Government's confusion, U-turns and general lack of consultation have been deeply unhelpful to the whole debate.
	I have a certain sympathy with the Leader of the House. She has been sent here to attempt to clear up this whole disastrous episode, which is not an easy job. I have a lot of sympathy also with those who have said that it does not make any sense for us to vote on the later motions if the Government accept the amendment to the first. It is slightly farcical for us to say, Leave it all to Kelly but then have those votes.
	It would have been better if a small number of urgent changes had been consulted on properly, introduced and enacted with the minimum of fuss. Instead we have had a mix of some good changes, many half-baked ideas and some changes that would just have made the whole system murkier. That said, we all know the depth of public anger on this issue. Given the motions before us, if the Government intend to press them, and given that the Kelly report might not be completed until the end of the year and therefore the changes might not come in until well into 2010, we must consider whether it is justifiable to vote today against measures that would clamp down on some of the abuses of the system. I think not.
	Motion 5, in particular, is long overdue. Rather than saying that something under 25 does not need a receipt, ensuring that receipts should be provided for every expense that we incur in our parliamentary duties seems to be common sense. I have called for that before in the House, and I will certainly support it today. Most of our constituents cannot understand why there is a different rule in the House of Commons from that in the real world. In most jobs, expense claims are accompanied by receipts as a matter of course.
	We can clearly deal with some problems today, but many more complex reforms are needed. As many hon. Members have said, the House of Commons has sadly shown itself not to be very well tasked with making those reforms or up to the job, whether in the vote last July that kicked out the reforms proposed by the Members Estimate Committee, the Government's attempts to keep everything secret back in January or even the mess that has been created over the past 10 days. That is why the independent review by Sir Christopher Kelly is so important.
	I am sure that all Members have had constituents raise with them many other issues of concern, particularly on second homes. People do not understand the designation of second homes, and why it seems to be possible for that to be decided on for the convenience of the MP involved. That clearly has to change. The John Lewis list caused huge public outcry and anger, and there is the problem of MPs making capital gains from properties partly funded by the taxpayer. I know that some in the House make the argument, which I understand, that it is often cheaper for the taxpayer to pay the mortgage interest on a bought property. I am sure that the flat that I rent may cost more, particularly with interest rates as they are, than the flats that some hon. Members have bought and claimed mortgage interest on. But surely it would not be impossible to design a system whereby the House of Commons had a portfolio of accommodation, so that the House would benefit from the capital gains and, over time, the cost to the taxpayer would actually reduce.
	We will all make our own representations to the Kelly review, but it is absolutely clear that the best way to proceed is to have an impartial arbiter to make a comprehensive set of proposals that we can use to start rebuilding public trust. Transparency has to be a fundamental principle of any system of MPs' expenses, because then whatever the system is, if there are problems with it, they will very soon come to attention and be nipped in the bud. That is why I will vote today to increase transparency in the expenses system.

Alan Simpson: I am standing down at the next election, so it would be very easy for me to say, A plague on everyone's houses and let the House get on with it, but my comments will be about the defence of Parliament more than that of parliamentarians. That is why it is important for me to say that we need to hand the matter over to the Kelly committee and sign up to applying whatever Kelly comes back with. We cannot be the judge and jury on our own allowances and pay.
	I shall limit myself to three points. The first is to take issue with the daily allowance idea, which was as offensive as it was absurd. To understand the absurdity, let us turn the matter around for a moment. The problem with life in this Chamber and the workings of Parliament is to be found not in the attendance of MPs but in the problem of getting the Government to turn up. If the daily allowance had been applied to the Government on the basis of the number of times that we were presented with substantive legislation on big issues, which we had the right to debate and vote on, there would have been large parts of the parliamentary year when the Government themselves would have been existing on jobseeker's allowance. Getting the Government, rather than getting Parliament, to turn up is the central problem.
	My second point is about scrutiny and the existing system. There is much to commend the existing systemthe failure has been ours, through our scrutiny and our penalties. My long-time friend and mentor, Tony Benn, said on many occasions that parliamentary democracy is held in check between the polling station and the police station. Our failure to deal with the most obscene transgressions by our colleagues and to impose penalties, including the loss of the right to be a Member of Parliament and the right to refer matters to the police for criminal prosecution, has allowed us to be dragged into the current mess.
	However, I do not want us to end up in a position that is simply a continuation of today's. I would have disagreements with colleagues of all parties about many policy areas and I can think of a series of benchmarks against which I would want Members of Parliament to be judged, but I am very clear about the benchmark against which I do not want a single Member of Parliament to be judged, and that is this object that I am holdingthe bath plug. I hope that hon. Members accept that that implies no particular relationship between the Home Secretary and me.
	The bath plug did not vote to take us into an illegal war on Iraq; it would not vote to renew Trident; it did not introduce tuition fees; it would not privatise the Post Office, and it would not turn its back on climate change. Parliament addresses those issues, and to defend Parliament we, as parliamentarians, must go beyond the strictures of today's limited debate and understand that our failure to tackle the big issues that affect people's lives has degraded and devalued politics to the level of the bath plug.
	If Parliament cannot rise to defend something bigger than ourselves, not only Members of Parliament but Parliament itself will go down the plug hole.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will start at 4.45 pm. Perhaps they will bear that in mind.

John Bercow: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). The debate has been good and stimulating and I want to add only three observations.
	First, I note that Sir Christopher indicates he does not intend to focus significantly on MPs' pay. He feels that it falls outwith his scope. My view is that it would make sense for him independently to consider pay, including, in the light of a series of comparators, the possibility of a significant increase in pay, accompanied by an absolute ban in future on outside interests. I think it would be good if Sir Christopher considered that.
	Secondly, I agree with the Leader of the House that agreeing to Sir Christopher's review should not, of itself, preclude any other decisions today. I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that a referral for overall long-term decision making is not incompatible with dealing with some of the simpler and urgent matters today. They are not mutually exclusive. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said as recently as 1 April that agreement on some matters was needed now and that we should sort it. I agreed with him then and I agree with him now.
	My third point is perhaps an illustration of the secondthat there are some matters on which we can act immediately. A case in point is the requirement to disclose much more information about outside interests. That is a compelling point. I declare an interestI have one outside interest, which is listed in the register, but I am entirely open to the view that thou shalt declare more about it, and answer questions such as the following: What exactly do you do? When were you appointed? What is your role? How long do you devote to it? How frequently do you visit the company concerned? That seems perfectly reasonable. I acknowledge that there are those who believe it legitimate to spend day upon day or week upon week away from the House, earning vast sums of money, and that the public should not be entitled to know about it. They are entitled to that view, but I disagree with it.

Shailesh Vara: I thank all the speakers who have taken part in today's debate.
	We are all agreed that this debate is about a crucial issue that has gone on for far too long. We are agreed that it needs sorting out so that we can have a system that is transparent and open. We must have a new system that has the confidence not only of hon. Members but of the public. It is important that we decide on what is right, rather than seeking to gain short-term political advantage for one particular party.
	We on the Conservative Benches agree with some of the measures that have been put forward on today's Order Paper. However, there is an element of lunacy when there are motions that are inconsistent with each other. It is vital that we sort the issue out. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said so eloquently, we cannot go on like this. If the matter is not sorted and sorted quickly, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) will be right when he says that it contaminates everything else that we do, a point that was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who said that the issue has a corrosive effect on public trust.
	Most of us present welcome the concession made by the Leader of the House in accepting the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who does a sterling job as the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is right that the matter should be considered by Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee on Standards in Public Life, away from the political heat and the political climate.
	My right hon. Friend made a typically eloquent speech in which he was not only thoughtful but quite rightly pointed out that it was wrong for the Prime Minister to give an oral statement on YouTube, rather than giving an oral statement to the House. When my right hon. Friend said that, he echoed the sentiments of many in the House, who felt that by doing that the Prime Minister was truly playing politics.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) spoke about the leaders of the three political parties working together. He is right to say that they should, but it is important that the Prime Minister consult them before he comes to his conclusion. It is not good enough for him simply to invite the leader of the Conservative party and the leader of the Lib Dems and tell them what he wants done. That is not consultation; it is bullying, and that is one of the reasons why we are in the mess that we are in today. I am pleased to say that that sentiment was echoed in all parts of the House. Indeed, it was summed up by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who said that the Prime Minister's performance on YouTube was simply too horrible to watch.
	There have been a number of speeches which I shall try to sum up in the few minutes that I have left, because I am keen to ensure that the Deputy Leader of the House also has a fair opportunity to sum up.
	The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) made a typically valuable contribution to the House, in the light of his experiences from the Committees on which he serves, and it was appreciated by all who were privileged to listen to it.
	The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was right to point out the need for allowances. It is important that the public recognise that we are not talking simply about a large sum of money that we trouser or about another way of increasing our salary. We need the allowances, but the important point is that they should be transparent and open to scrutiny by anyone.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) also spoke of the need for allowances, but added that if it were not for the benefit of allowances, entry to this House would be confined to those who are wealthy. That would be a retrograde step, because if this House is to be truly democratic, it must have people from all walks of life and all backgrounds. The allowances are there to ensure that that happens in the 21st century.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made a powerful speech, and her sentiments were echoed on both sides of the House. She rightly said that the vast majority of Members of Parliament were here to do the best possible job that they could, and that they should not be treated as corrupt. We simply come here to serve our constituents to the best of our ability, and to make what little contribution we can to our country. If we can make the world a better place, that will be a bonus.
	The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) rightly touched on the issue of staffing, which was echoed by other Members. That is an important issue and it will need to be resolved. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) made a speech that touched on the credibility of Members of Parliamentagain, a theme that had been previously addressed. He expressed himself eloquently, as he always does when he speaks from the Back Benches.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) eloquently summed up the view of many people. He said that we come here to do the best possible job that we can for our constituents and our country, and that there is a hell of a lot more to what we do than can be summed up simply by looking at a bath plug. We are here to do far greater things. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) spoke of the need to be more open, not less. The concluding comments came from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is capable of speaking at length but, when required to do so, can speak with brevity as well. He certainly did that today.
	This is a crucial issue. It has been going on for far too long, and it is vital that Members of Parliament recognise that unless we resolve it quickly, we will lose every element of credibility with the public.

Chris Bryant: I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand if I do not canter through all the contributions that have been made this afternoon. Instead, I will try to answer the specific questions that have been raised.
	It has been clear throughout the debate that all hon. Members favour the idea of sending this important issue to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and of ensuring that its independence can reinforce the confidence that the public can have in the system of allowances that we have in the House. All hon. Members have already had a copy of the issues paper sent out by the Committee, and I am sure that they will want to commend the Committee for the work that it has started to do. They might also wish to reflect on the Committee's comment on the rising tide of criticism of the present system. It states:
	This is an unhealthy situation for democracy. It must also be very disheartening for all those many MPs who perform their duties to the best of their ability with diligence and integrity.
	That is what everyone has been saying today.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has already made it clear that, because of the unanimity on the issue of referring the matter to the independent Committee, we are more than happy to accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and by the other members of his Committee. I understand that some Members think we should therefore do nothing more today. I would merely note that the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) has just said that this has gone on for far too long, and that we need to take action. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said that change was necessary and that we needed to achieve it quickly. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that we could not get away from the urgency of dealing with this matter. So I hope that we will move forward on the series of additional measures beyond that first one.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not. The hon. Gentleman knows that I would normally want to be as generous as I can, but we have very little time, and I have a series of issues that I want to clear up. I apologise to him.
	First, it is right that we move forward on two matters on which Members of all political parties in the House today agree: namely, putting the allowances claimable by outer-London MPs on the same footing as that for inner-London MPs, and reducing the threshold from 25 to zero for receipts for claims. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was the last person in the debate specifically to mention the need for receipts for claims right down to zero. I also think it is only appropriate that we should be giving advance notice to all those affected by the changes in allowances claimable for outer-London MPs, which is what our measure today would do if carried.
	I also hope that we will be able to move forward on the issues related to transparency. Virtually every MP who has spoken today has said that they believe in far greater transparency in the way we do our business. That means that we should be moving forward, so that not only the public but Sir Christopher Kelly's committee can have a full understanding of precisely the level of remunerated employment and directorships enjoyed by MPs.
	I do not like to disagree with the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, but I do disagree with his interpretation of our motion. We have made it clear that the new threshold of zero does not apply to gifts and hospitalityin other words, to category 5 in the register. That is why I very much hope that all MPs will feel able to support that motion.
	I also oppose the amendment that would remove the registration of the amount of time than an MP devotes to additional responsibilities and remunerated employment outside the House. I believe it is legitimate for constituents to understand how much of our time we choose to commit to the House and how much we choose to commit to other remunerated employment.
	On staffing, there are many issues on which the House can agree. First, our staff are absolutely vital to the work that we do. None of us could fulfil the modern job of an MP without staff. Secondly, the terms and conditions that our staff enjoy should at least be protected by any changes that may be made in the future. Thirdly, it must be a matter of personal appointment by the individual MP as to who comes to work in their office because the relationship between an MP and their staff is intrinsically a matter of trust. It should be for the MP to manage their staff as they see fit.
	Many other questions have been asked this afternoon and I will not be able to answer all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) asked about staff pensions. Questions about what contracts might need to be renegotiated have also been asked. We need to be absolutely clear that the motion merely asks the House of Commons Commission within the next six months to bring forward concrete proposals that I hope we could then put to the House for formal agreement.
	In addition, many hon. Members who are to leave the House at the next election have been concerned that there will be changes to the winding-up allowance. There is no recommendation that there should be any change to the winding-up allowance.  [ Interruption. ] I see the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is seeking an assurance on this point. I very much hope that I can provide precisely the reassurance that she needs.

Ann Widdecombe: For the staff?

Chris Bryant: For the staff, indeed.
	I hope we will take several significant steps today. First, we should refer the matter of our allowances to the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life. Secondly, we should reform the structure of allowances for outer-London MPs. Thirdly, we should ensure far greater transparency on Members' directorships and remunerated employment. Fourthly, we should ensure that receipts are provided for all claims. Fifthly, we should start the work on the employment of staff. The country and our constituents expect no less from us.
	 The Speaker put the  Question  (Order, 29 April), That the amendment be made.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Amendment (j) accordingly agreed to.
	 The Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, 29 April).
	 Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's decision of 23 March 2009 to invite the Committee on Standards in Public Life to inquire into Members' allowances; believes that in order to command maximum public support for change the House should defer its conclusions until after the Committee has reported; and further believes it would be desirable for the House to have an opportunity to consider any recommendations from the Committee as early as possible.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order for us better to understand our proceedings, I note that an amendment has been made to a motion without any opposition in the Housewhat might loosely be called unanimous support. May I ask whether there is any precedent for an amendment of exactly the same words not being allowed to be applied to subsequent motions?

Mr. Speaker: In order to help the hon. Gentleman, it was explained earlier that the following motions can be voted against. The House can negate them if it so wishes.  [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was very good at being a Home Office Minister, but she should let me do the chairing. She will find it easier.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a mere ex-Home Office Minister, I do not have a clue about all these matters, so perhaps you could enlighten me. How can we have an amendment accepted that says that we will not take any decisions until Kelly has reported and at one and the same time take a decision that will be binding?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged by the House to put these motions.  [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady asks me a question and she is still talking. I will answer her. There was an amendment to the question on Members' allowances, and it was unanimously carried. That is done. We now move on to motion 2 on Members' allowances for Greater London. There is no amendment selected to that. It is up to the House either to vote for it or negate it.

Peter Bottomley: rose

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged by the rules of the House to put the question at 5 o'clock. I have given clarification to two Members, and we will leave it at that.

members' allowances (greater London)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That, with effect from 1 April 2010, no distinction shall be made for the purposes of the rules governing Members' allowances between an hon. Member who represents an inner-London constituency and an hon. Member who represents any other constituency the whole of which falls within 20 miles of the Palace of Westminster. (Chris Bryant.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 355, Noes 39.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Registration of members' Financial Interests

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	(1) That, for the purpose of complying with the Resolution of the House of 22 May 1974 relating to Registration of Members' Financial Interests, in respect of interests falling within Category 1 (Directorships), Category 2 (Remunerated employment, office, profession, etc) or Category 3 (Clients), hon. Members shall furnish the Registrar with the following particulars
	(a) the precise amount of each individual payment made in relation to any interest,
	(b) the nature of the work carried out in return for that payment,
	(c) the number of hours worked during the period to which the payment relates, and
	(d) except where disclosure of the information would be contrary to any legal or established professional duty of privacy or confidentiality, the name and address of the person, organisation or company making the payment;
	(2) That such interests shall be registered whether or not their value in any given year exceeds one per cent. of the current Parliamentary salary;
	(3) That the provisions of this Resolution shall apply whether or not the interest in question depends essentially upon, or arises out of, the hon. Member's position as a Member of Parliament; and
	(4) That the provisions of this Resolution shall come into effect on 1 July 2009. [Chris Bryant.]

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) wish to move amendment (g)?

Patrick Cormack: I wish just to vote against the whole thing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not moved.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 31.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Members' staff

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	(1) That, in the opinion of this House, staff who work for an hon. Member should be employed by the House, as a personal appointment and managed by the hon. Member; and
	(2) That the House of Commons Commission shall consider this decision and make recommendations for its implementation, including any transitional provisions which may be necessary, by 29 October 2009. (Chris Bryant.)
	 Amendment proposed: (a), leave out paragraph (1).( Mr. Heath)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 285.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 100.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES (EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That, in respect of any claim for payment made by an hon. Member after 1 July 2009 in relation to any allowance or expenditure for which documentary evidence is required, such evidence shall be required regardless of the sum concerned. ( Chris Bryant. )
	 The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 22.

Question accordingly agreed  to.

Members Estimate committee (amendment of the Green Book)

Ordered,
	That Standing Order No. 152D (House of Commons Members Estimate Committee) shall be amended in line 10 by inserting after 'House' the words 'and the Guide to Members' Allowances known as the Green Book'. ( Chris Bryant .)

Business without Debate
	  
	delegated legislation

Ordered,
	That the Motion in the name of Mr Pat McFadden relating to Financial Assistance to Industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved. (Ms Diana R.  Johnson.)

PETITIONS

Sri Lanka

Tom Brake: It is my pleasure this evening to present to the House a petition on behalf of my constituents and others on Sri Lanka. It may interest hon. Members to know that, a few weeks ago, I held a meeting with around 600 or 700 Tamils in my constituency, who were clearly concerned and alarmed about the situation there. It is therefore my pleasure to present their petition.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [The Petition of members of the British Tamil community, and others,
	 Declares that the loss of life, denial of human rights, and restricted access of the United Nations and other relief agencies in Sri Lanka are unacceptable; and further declares that tens of thousands of Tamil civilians have been displaced by military action and face an uncertain future.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary steps to secure a ceasefire, allow unfettered access for UN and NGO relief, human rights agencies and the media, and make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that a lasting peace can only come through political dialogue and respect for human rights.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000356]

Schools (Isle of Wight)

Andrew Turner: The petition of 2,058 signatures is by the villagers, parents and children of the Chale school and village community on the Isle of Wight.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of Chale School and Village Community Association and supporters,
	Declares that Chale Church of England Primary School must be retained within the village; further declares that this small rural school provides the perfect environment for local children to develop their full potential academically, together with social skills for future life within the community of the village; notes that the closure of the village school would necessitate children as young as four years old travelling up to 16 miles a day on an additional school bus; further notes that this would preclude parents from having daily interaction with teaching staff and settling their children into school each day, and that this would also impact upon children's opportunities to partake in after school activities; believes that the financial implications of providing this transport would eradicate any potential savings from the school closure; and further believes that closing the school would rip the heart out of the community, and undermine village life, causing young families to move away in order to live near a primary school.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to direct the Isle of Wight Council to abandon any plans to close Chale School.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000360]

VISTEON FACTORY (BASILDON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Ms Diana R. Johnson.)

Angela Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate on issues that are of particular concern to me and my constituents, especially those who are former employees of Visteon. I am pleased to see the support in the Chamber for the issues I am raising this evening, which is unusual on a Thursday, from my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) and the hon. Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Billericay (Mr. Baron). I also thank Unite and its members, as well as former employees of Basildon Visteon, for their help and information in preparing for this debate.
	Ford had significant interests in Basildon, with the radiator plant, the tractor plant, the offices at Trafford house in Basildon town centre and the research establishment at Dunton. In addition, a large number of people travelled daily to Dagenham. Ford was important to the economy of the town and had a good and valued relationship with the local community. The community is now showing that support to the Visteon workers.
	I grew up as the daughter of a Ford and then Visteon employee. My dad worked at the radiator plant in Basildon on the production line. Visteon UK was created wholly from the Ford Motor Company in 2000. Ford workers employed at the Basildon radiator plant were transferred to the new company Visteon. At the time I met both Ford and Visteon and was given the same assurances as those who worked there were given, which was that their terms and conditions of employment were guaranteed, just as if they were Ford employees. I have copies of numerous documents and letters that were given to employees at the time. The point could not have been clearer. Let me quote from one such document, which tells workers that:
	The agreement governing the separation of the Visteon organisation
	makes it clear that their
	existing terms and conditions, including pension entitlements
	will give them
	lifetime protection while an employee of Visteon UK Limited.

Bob Spink: We are all grateful to Ford for what it has done over many years in our constituency. Does the hon. Lady accept that Visteon has treated loyal and excellent employees in a disgraceful and underhand manner? I thank her for her assiduous and caring work, not only on behalf of her constituents, but on behalf of my constituents too. They appreciate her work very much.

Angela Smith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I should point out that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has turned up this evening and that two hon. Members from Belfastthe hon. Members for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds)have also given their support.
	Visteon has never made a profit. The closure and sale of some other Visteon plants meant that only three remained, in Basildon, Belfast and Enfield. There has been concern about Visteon's finances for some time. In 2006 the deficit was more than 82.2 million and in 2007 it was more than 118 million.

Joan Ryan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she agree with me and others that Visteon is, in fact, an internal accounting mechanism that has been allowed to go bust? Although we know that people will lose their jobs in a recession, the way in which they lose them is important. Those loyal workers have been treated very badly indeed. I hope to be able to support any moves that my hon. Friend makes to ensure that we hold Visteon and Ford to account, so that they do not get off the hook.

Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In some ways I would go further. I find it strange that a deficit should be allowed to run for so many years, if doing so is not in the interests of the company concerned.
	On 2 March 2009, I went to the Visteon radiator plant in Basildon at the request of union representatives to meet members of Unite and Visteon management. At that time, staff were on a three or four-day week. The American parent company was demanding that the multi-million pound deficit, which had been growing since 2000, be erased within that financial quarter. I cannot see how that could be possible, after years of operating with a deficit.
	A number of issues were discussed at that meeting, and the management remained firmly of the view that the reasons for the financial problems were the legacy structure and the inadequate pace of change. I queried why, when more work was needed for Basildon, an order that had been fulfilled in Basildon until January 2009 was now coming into Basildon and then being sent out to Autopal, Visteon's sister plant in the Czech Republic. Surely, even if the costs were slightly higher for that one order, keeping work in Basildon would have brought the unit costs of all work down.
	The management, led by the former Basildon plant manager and then UK director, Steve Gawne, also claimed that the work force at Basildon had failed to support initiatives to cut costs, and repeatedly said that the problem was the terms and conditions of the work force, yet these were the very terms and conditions that the work force were told were guaranteed for life when they were transferred to Visteon.
	I also disputed the assertion that the unions and the work force had not supported cutting costs. I will give the House an example. The competitive cost rateCCRprogramme was agreed with the union in 2006. This was an agreement that all new staff brought in to fill the vacancies resulting from people leaving to go back to work at Ford would be employed on lower rates of pay. The notice from the then manager, Jason Field, said that if this were not agreed, the company would be left with no alternative but to source the business to Autopal, the Visteon plant in Czech Republic. That is the same place where Jason Field is now the manager and undertaking work previously done at Basildon.
	Given the management's insistence that they needed to cut staff costs, and that that was the only way to achieve cuts, I queried the most recent early retirement programme. Although Mr. Gawne insisted that everybody who had wanted early retirement had achieved it, a number of people have complained to me that the offer was significantly lower than in previous years. However, the CCR workersthose on the lower rates of paywho had perhaps only two years, service were offered more than 10,000 to leave. I am not suggesting that that is a good principle, but if the real issue was the cost of the work force, surely the management would have been keen to keep the lower paid workers on rather than offering them a proportionally much higher payment than those taking early retirement. By contrast, one person with more than 12 years' service was offered a redundancy payment of just over 16,000.
	I also asked why there had not been more efforts to use the Visteon work force to undertake work being done by contractors at the plant. I did not a get satisfactory answer to that, or to my other questions. I do not have time today to go into all the detail of the discussions, but I left the plant feeling very queasy that the management were not committed to a long-term future and that the problems being experienced, while being exacerbated by the recession, were not due to the recession, as they go back much further.
	On 31 March, I spoke again to Steve Gawne, who told me that, immediately after our conversation, he would be informing the work force that the company was going into administration with immediate effect, as the US was unable to continue its financial support. Despite my concerns, I really had not anticipated that the company would be so brutal. As people turned up for work they were told to leave, and given just a few minutes to collect their belongings. I immediately spoke to the administrators, KPMG, who confirmed that of the 610 employees in the UK, all except 15 would be losing their jobs immediately, of which 158 were at Basildon. KPMG also confirmed that the pension plan was in deficit and that the Government would be required, through the Pension Protection Fund, to step in.
	Many of the workers at Basildon have been very long-term employees. It is not unusual to have 20 or even 30 years' service under both Ford and Visteon. My father worked at the same plant for 30 years. Becoming unemployed at such short notice without any redundancy payment or support has been the most dreadful shock imaginable. I should like to pay tribute to Basildon Jobcentre Plus. Most companies in these circumstances would offer advice and support before closing, but Visteon chose not to do so. Basildon Jobcentre Plus staff have done their best to help.
	Since then, there have been two meetings between the union leadership and Visteon regarding redundancy, and I can confirm that Visteon made an offer. Following the rejection of that inadequate offer, it has subsequently improved it. Having said that, while Visteon might consider that the offer complies with its newer terms and conditionsknown as the orange book or the pumpkin bookit does not comply with the original blue book terms and conditions that staff were told would apply for life when they transferred in 2000. I strongly believe that Visteon has behaved absolutely disgracefully.

John Baron: Like the hon. Lady, I visited the picket line in Basildon, as some of my constituents were there. I informed her of the visit. She is absolutely right to focus on that point. The key concern among the Visteon workers is the fact that they had an agreement in placeshe and I, and other Members, have seen the evidencethat gave them parallel terms with Ford workers. That is why those on the picket line and the ex-Visteon workers feel so aggrieved. I would like to ask the Minister, through the hon. Lady, to ensure that the Government do what they can to look at that agreement to see whether it can be enforced. That is the main gripe of the Visteon workers, alongside their concern about whether the Pension Protection Fund will kick in.

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right and I will develop the point about the relationship with Ford. Visteon relies on the fact that there was a new bookthe orange or pumpkin bookbut that does not remove the fact that the blue book contained their lifetime terms and conditions.
	Many former employees still believe that the commitment to Ford's terms and conditions means just that; that Ford still has a duty of care towards its former employees. It transferred them and assured them there would be no changes. I have been in contact with Ford and the statement I have received from the head of government affairs at Ford says about the contract of employment:
	According to Visteon HR, all Visteon UK employees were sent letters in 2000 informing them of their new employment status (i.e. that they were Visteon UK employees). In line with the separation agreement Visteon agreed to mirror Ford terms and conditions for Ford employees transferring to Visteon. The responsibility for administering and funding these was Visteon's. When Visteon management took the decision to put Visteon UK into administration we understand the contracts were subsequently terminated by the administrators...Ford very much regrets the job losses.
	It then goes on about difficulties in the motor industry.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Lady agree that Ford has been complicit in all this? It seems to have walked away from agreements that it had passed on. Surely it must have some obligation to ensure that these were adhered to and honoured.

Angela Smith: I am unclear whether there is a legal obligation and I want to look into that further. I am absolutely clear that there is a moral obligation.
	I welcome the fact that Ford of Europe's senior management have met Unite. However, I am disappointed to be informed that, so far:
	At these discussions, Ford acknowledged the concerns expressed and agreed to pass them on to senior management in Visteon Corporation.
	So far, to no effect.
	May I highlight to the Minister my five main areas of concern? Although I appreciate that he could not and should not be held accountable for the actions of a private company such as Visteon, I would be grateful for any advice or help he gave in trying to get to satisfactory answers to these questions.
	First, the issue raised by other hon. Members has been the links with Ford. Notwithstanding the above, it is hard for Visteon employees to accept that Ford has no responsibility towards them when their access ID cards display the Ford logo. I have N. Chapman's card here with me; it says Ford Motor Company, Basildon radiator plant. That was the card when this gentleman concerned lost his job. Long service awards are given out in the name of Ford, not Visteon. Employees get a discount through the Ford employees' scheme on Ford cars and have access to the Ford social club.
	I have spoken with Ford about that and it has explained that the long service awards presented to staff after 25 years' or more service should have the logos of both companies on to reflect the continuous service across both companies. It would be great if that were the case, but why does Richard Carey's awarda very nice crystal vaseafter 25 years' service not have any Visteon identification at all, only Ford's?
	Internal job vacancies for Ford were advertised at Visteon and those who were successful would go back to Ford under the flow-back arrangements. These are incredibly strong links between the two companies.
	There is also the issue of the company deficit. Visteon states that it
	sustained accumulative losses approaching 800 million through 2008.
	I think that the company wrote to the hon. Member for Castle Point on the same issue. As early as 2000, the plant manager at the time, Ron Stockwell, wrote to all employees at Basildon stating that the key challenges were to
	reduce cost and change our business strategy.
	I outlined earlier the deficits in 2006 and 2007; multi-million pound deficits. Why would any company maintain such a deficit for so long unless it suited the company to do so?
	Automotive Holdings Ltd was set up on 4 February 2009 with directors from Visteon, including the UK director Stephen Gawne, one from the US and one from France. It is registered in the UK, with Visteon International Holdings in Michigan as the shareholder. It is based at the other Visteon site in Basildon. James Fisher from Visteon in the USA e-mailed me to say that the company
	was established as a potential legal entity solely for tax planning purposes. Visteon was exploring the ability to monetize
	not a word that I have come across before
	certain of significant tax losses and other tax attributes accumulated in the UK with the objective of generating cash for Visteon UK Ltd, however further planning concluded that such planning was not feasible.
	Why would a new company be set up in the Basildon area, with directors of Visteon UK, in February 2009, given that the plant was shut down in March?
	Other issues of great concern are something called project Protea, and outsourcing. I have briefly mentioned my concerns about work being outsourced from Basildon to the Visteon plant, Autopal, in the Czech Republic. It was shocking for workers to see work coming in from Korea only for it to go out again to Autopal.
	More alarming was a document I received marked Visteon Confidential and headed Project Protea, and dated 21 May 2007. It relates to Belfast plants and has implications for Basildon and Enfield. It says:
	Belfast is one of five UK manufacturing facilities which generate losses and contribute to the overall loss making performance of Visteon UK.
	It then says that the strategy is to
	Develop duplicate sources for all the Belfast product lines by the end of 2007. Stockpile service parts to avoid duplication
	and I highlight
	Engage Ford for assistance in transferring products to new locations,
	from Belfast.
	The product line summary refers to manifolds, and states:
	The growth in manifold business in Belfast is driven by a sourcing agreement between Ford and Visteon which enabled the exit of the oil and water pumps...Direction is to actively work with Ford to re-source all Manifold and ACA's business out of Visteon, to suppliers of Ford's choice.
	On the issue of fuel rails, it says:
	This business is marginally profitable in Belfast...The Sigma fuel rail is injection moulded and assembled in Belfast and under Project Protea it will be transferred to the Visteon Port Elizabeth facility.
	The concern must be that not only was work not being sought to be brought into the UK, but on the contrary Visteon UK was actively seeking to remove work from the UK and seeking support from Ford to do so.
	The other issue of great seriousness, worry and concern for all our constituents is pensions. As confirmed by KPMG, the pension fund is now in deficit. It would appear that existing pensioners of pensionable age still receive their full entitlement, but those who took early retirement, or have yet to retire, have been told to expect cuts of about 10 per cent. of their pension. The Government may have to step in to compensate those who have paid into the company pension fund.
	In August 2000, employees transferred to Visteon from Ford on 1 May 2000 were told that the new Visteon scheme would provide exactly the same benefits as the Ford fund. In January 2001, it could not have been made clearer:
	If you join The Visteon UK Pension Plan, then for future service from 1 April 2001, you will receive the same pension benefits as you would have received from your Ford Pension Fund based on the current and future provisions of that scheme.
	Management of the pension fund is causing enormous concern, and I ask the Minister to look at whether the fund has been mismanaged. I understand that the pensions regulator has been contacted and has received information. I appeal to the regulator to investigate the matter fully, and urge the Minister to support any such investigation.
	I will give the Minister one example of a complaint submitted. The trustee agreed to transfer the benefits of the members, together with assets totalling over 21 million, on 30 May 2007. That related, I think, to flow-back from Visteon to Ford. Visteon UK Ltd then made a special contribution of more than 7 million to the Visteon UK pension plan, so that in making the transfer it would
	not be reducing the security of the remaining Plan members.
	I have seen complaints about several similar situations whereby very large sums have been transferred from the Visteon pension fund into the Ford pension fund. The trustee of the Visteon pension fund has apparently said that such transfers did not affect the security of the remaining plan members. Why are we now seeing such a deficit in the pension fund, which does affect the security of existing plan members?
	My constituents who have worked for Ford and then Visteon are very loyal, very hard-working employees. They wanted to work with management to examine ways of cutting costs in order to increase the sustainability of their company and their employment. There was huge frustration among those who worked at Visteon that they were not able to work better with management to achieve those cost-cutting measures. All that the management would talk about, as I found too when I spoke to them, was staff terms and conditions. They were not talking about the terms and conditions of management, because the information that I have received is that the management got a substantial pay rise while they were trying to cut the terms and conditions of the staff.
	My constituents, such as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North, the hon. Member for Castle Point, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others, have not been shown the same respect and dedication that they showed to their former employers. The Minister will understand my anger, their anger and the anger of the Members who are present about the lack of justice.
	I have highlighted a number of issues of concern. The promises made at the time of separation between Ford and Visteon have not been kept. I am talking not about one promise, but about repeated promises made in numerous items of correspondence and in documents. These promises of lifetime protection of terms and conditions, including redundancy, were not kept. There has been a curious deficit in the pension fund, a lack of any real action from the managers of Visteon in respect of the sustainability of the company and a lack of genuine co-operation with the union. The most serious thing is what appears to be the deliberate outsourcing and running down of the company, as highlighted in a secret document dated 21 May 2007 from Belfast. All those issues have to be addressed, and any help that the Minister can give my colleagues and me here tonight will be greatly welcomed in trying to fight this injustice.

Ian Pearson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith). She has championed the interests of Visteon's UK workers powerfully over a long time, and I have had many conversations and meetings with her on the subject. I welcome the opportunity to respond to her today on the record. I also welcome the strong interest of a number of hon. Members in the House today who have constituents, be they in Basildon, Enfield or Northern Ireland, who have been affected by this situation.
	The circumstances surrounding the closure of the facilities at Basildon, Enfield and Belfast are very sad, and I very much sympathise with the position in which the work force have found themselves. Agencies here and in Northern Ireland have taken steps to put in place a range of support that will help the workers to find other work and training opportunities, and the agencies remain committed to helping those affected. I also note that although today's debate is focusing on events at Visteon UK's manufacturing operations, Visteon Corporation's commitment to Visteon Engineering Services is extant, and it continues to have a UK presence.

Angela Smith: Is the Minister aware that there are rumoured plans to move Visteon Engineering Services in Basildon away from the town to another location? That would be a further blow to my constituency from this company.

Ian Pearson: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I do not have any information about those plans and I would not want to speculate on rumours. However, I very much share her concerns, and those of other hon. Members present, about the manner in which this administration has been brought about. Although it is true that the automotive industry globally has been having a tough time, the problems that brought Visteon to its current position are rooted very much in the past: in its break from Ford; in how it has pursued business opportunities, including the outsourcing to eastern Europe and South Africa, which she discussed; and in the manner in which the work force have responded.
	Although the warning signs have been apparent for some time, the speed of developments has taken many by surprise, starting with the review announced in January 2009, when Visteon UK management were charged by the parent company to put into place a plan by the end of March 2009 to stem its losses. By any stretch of the imagination, that time scale was very short. No company can maintain constant losses and since its spin-off from Ford in 2000, Visteon in the UK has never been profitable, with losses over the nine years of 800 million. In the same period, Visteon Corporation has invested some 1 billion into the UK business to continue its operations. Worldwide, the corporation lost $663 million in 2008. Visteon has been in a difficult situation, but my hon. Friend rightly points to the very short time frame in which Visteon UK was required to take action if administration were to be avoided.
	The review concluded that, without ongoing funding from Visteon Corporation, its UK business activities would not be viable. The ending of funding on 31 March 2009 meant that the company was insolvent and its directors took the decision to put the company into administration immediately.
	As my hon. Friend said, meetings have been held between Visteon Corporation and the unions on redundancy packages. One offer was tabled earlier this month and a further improved offer this week. This would be entirely funded by the corporationbeyond the statutory minimum. I understand that the company is keen to ensure speedy payment in recognition of the hardships faced by its ex-employees. Discussions continue with the unions and I hope that they have a positive outcome.
	Hon. Members talked about the enforceability of the employment agreement between Visteon and its work force, and I am sure that the unions will take legal advice on this matter. I am also sure that Visteon will note the point that my hon. Friend makes when she talks about the moral responsibility on it to honour those agreements. That point was also supported by other hon. Members.
	The Government have maintained regular contact with the company and we have tried to help where we can. As part of the company review, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform suggested the involvement of the conciliation service ACAS in discussions on the mirroredor ex-Fordterms and conditions. Visteon UK met ACAS in February. However, while the unions were happy for ACAS to be involved in principle, they did not want to discuss terms and conditions with it. ACAS was therefore stood down as no progress was possible.
	The Department has remained in close contact over the past four years as Visteon has attempted to put its UK operations on to a sound financial footing. Government in the UK and the Northern Ireland Assemblyand previously the Welsh Assembly Government with regard to the former Swansea planthave supported the company through regional grants for Belfast, Enfield and Swansea, supply chain activity and training worth more than 1 million. There has also been a range of local support and assistance.
	My hon. Friend mentioned pensions and I recognise the strong concerns that former employees of Visteon will have about their pension entitlements. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Pension Protection Fund has been notified and that it is considering the position of the scheme.

Angela Smith: Will my hon. Friend press the pensions regulator to investigate this case?

Ian Pearson: I note what my hon. Friend says. One thing that I was going to suggest was that I should meet her to discuss that and other issues to do with the matter.
	Clearly, my hon. Friend raised a lot of issues about the company's strong links with Ford. She will undoubtedly continue to campaign on the issueand rightly soand will no doubt keep me updated on her progress. I am happy to discuss with her whether the Government can play a useful role. She mentioned, in particular, involving the pensions regulator. Of course, the administrator will have to produce a report to Government in due course.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.